- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:10:50 -0700
- To: Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Karl Groves'" <karl.groves@ssbbartgroup.com>, "'Andrew Sidwell'" <w3c@andrewsidwell.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, "'HTML4All'" <list@html4all.org>
On Tuesday 2008-05-27 14:56 -0700, Matt Morgan-May wrote: > On 5/27/08 1:59 PM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > If so, would you agree that it's worth standardizing what should be > > used to mark such a case rather than having authors pick "[IMAGE]" > > or "[PHOTO]" or their own variant? > > I don't see the value in taking what should be a token and throwing it into > an attribute of type text. It strikes me as lazy. I was trying to ask the question in a mechanism-neutral way, so we can agree on whether it's worth having a standard way to express the concept (of having an image that is an important part of the content but for which appropriate alternate text is not known) before arguing over the syntax. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 22:11:49 UTC