- From: Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:19:00 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: "'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 5/27/08 1:59 PM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > Title" on listing pages, which is: > * not useful, since if alt is used as a replacement for the image: > + alt="" makes it appear that there is nothing there Yes, no argument there. Any user should know that there is in fact an image there, even if they can't see it, because they may want to copy or save it. > + alt="Photo Title" duplicates content already in the page How is that in any way a problem that rises to the language level to be solved? A Flickr page is a shell surrounding one subject image. In this instance, @alt is the most relevant place to have meaningful content about the image. Any visible title, be it <Hn>, <TITLE>, or otherwise, is a duplication of the semantics presented by the image, not the other way around. > I don't think we should use "standards are not laws" as an excuse > for adding conformance requirements that we neither expect nor want > people to meet. You may not want or expect people to meet the same requirements that were already in HTML 4.01, but I'm pretty sure I do. > Unreasonable requirements can reduce respect for > and conformance to the standard as a whole. The current draft instructs user agents to implement image recognition algorithms to deal with missing alt. Do you find that particularly reasonable, or for that matter, respectable? - m
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 22:20:04 UTC