- From: Koga Youichirou <y-koga@ccs.mt.nec.co.jp>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:53:12 +0900 (JST)
- To: wlkngowl@unix.asb.com
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
"Rob" <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>: > > I don't think it's a good idea. I think ``IMPLIED'' is a sufficient > > condition as before because ALT means altenate text as you wrote > > above. If there are no ALT attributes in <IMG>, user agents can know > > there need not any alternate text for this image and it's sufficient. > > But new HTML 4.0 draft botheres HTML authors those who decide > > alternate text is not necessary to some images (e.g. images for > > decoration) to fill with NULL text in ALT attribute. > > So use something like <IMG SRC="border.gif" ALT="Decorative Border"> > to let users know the image is decorative. Since the image is purely > decorative, in the future it can be defined using style sheets I don't think so because what style sheets supply are different from what images supply. But this is not the point under discussion. I think ``IMPLIED'' is a sufficient condition. <IMG> which author doesn't specify alternate text is decided so by author. > > I point out some curiousities about ALT for <IMG>. > > B.5.1 says: When an author does not set the alt attribute for the IMG or > > APPLET elements,... > > but now <IMG> requires ALT attribute and this condition never happen. > > Even though it shouldn't, it will because many authors never pay > attention to the specs. Hence: Why they don't? Because it is not a necessary condition but this specification requires it. I think required specs should be necessary conditions. Now an HTML text which includes <IMG> without ALT is not an HTML 4.0 text and this description about <IMG> is unnecessary. W3C-NOTE is suitable for such notes probably. > > 2. Otherwise, if HTTP headers provide title information when > > the included object is retrieved, this information should > > be used as alternate text. > > > > Which field of HTTP headers? > > Title: But it is not written anywhere. It should be stated clearly. > > 3. Otherwise, if the included object contains text fields > > (e.g., GIF images contain some text fields), information > > extracted from the text fields should be used as > > alternate text. Since user agents may have to retrieve an > > entire object first in order to extract textual > > information, user agents may adopt more economical > > approaches (e.g., content negotiation). > > > > This means all user agents must GET image datas when they fail 1 & > > 2. And this requires user agents to analyze image datas too. Really? I > > think it's stupid. > > Somewhat, but when bandwidth isn't a problem, it isn't as stupid. > Some formats such as GIF and PNG allow comments to be embedded > near the beginning of the file. Problems are: - User agents can not know bandwidth of network which it's using in advance and probably it would be changed dynamically. - User agents can not know its image data size in advance. - User agents can not know its image format in advance. - User agents can not know whether any strings are included or not before they download and analyze it. and... > The problem I see is that suddenly pages with no ALT= text for their > images will have bizarre messages like "(c) 1997 XYZ, Inc." or more > embarrassingly "FooBar Imagizer. Unregistered version." extracted from > the comments. Exactly. > > 4. Otherwise, in the absence of other information, user > > agents should use the file name (minus the extension) > > as alternate text. > > > > What is `file name'? > > The URL without the protocol, server, port, and path. So > > <IMG SRC="http://www.mysite.net/images/border.gif"> > > Would show up as > > "border" Huh, you say that <IMG SRC="http://hostname/path/to/cgi-bin/nonsense-string"> would show up as ``nonsense-string'' but it's not ``file name''. So I asked ``What is `file name'?''. You see? How do user agents know whether `border.gif' is file name or not? `border.gif' is a part of URL and it's not file name. So this description is not proper. -- Koga Youichirou
Received on Thursday, 18 September 1997 23:53:29 UTC