- From: David Dorward <david@us-lot.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 23:49:00 +0100
- To: Andy <aholmes84@shaw.ca>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 03:37:48 -0700, Andy wrote: > Just a rough idea I had, not sure if the 'img' tag is going to remain in > XHTML2 or not but this could still apply to whatever takes it's place. I was under the impression that it was removed in favour of <object> (which has been the preferred method since HTML 4, but woefully poorly supported by MSIE). > Imagine you have a company logo at the top of your page which reads > 'Acme' in some funky text (hence the image format). Your code might read > like so: > > <img src="company_logo.gif" alt="Acme"/> <object data="company_logo.gif" type="image/gif"> Acme </object> > Now if you were 'experiencing' this webpage with an aural browser, it > would just read off 'Acme' as normal text, but what if you could do > something like: > > <img src="company_logo.gif" alt="<h1>Acme</h1>"/> You can, but that states that the rendered alt text should be <h1>Acme</h1>. With <object>, however: <object data="company_logo.gif" type="image/gif"> <h1>Acme</h1> </object> > This would give the alternate text some semantical meaning to anyone not > viewing the page in a visual/graphical browser. Obviously the current > method would make it impossible to print < or > into the document > as regular characters, but the idea still remains. The alternative content might be a level 1 heading, but so is the image. So this is the correct way to mark the content up using <img> in XHTML 1.x. <h1><img src="company_logo.gif" alt="Acme"/></h1> -- David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/ Redesign in progress: http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/ 2 and 5 are objects, as opposed to Java, where they are primitive thingies.
Received on Sunday, 4 May 2003 18:49:09 UTC