- From: Sean Palmer <wapdesign@wapdesign.org.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:00:56 +0100
- To: "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
> | fantasai wrote: > | > I think that alternative content to use when current content is unrenderable > | > should be given in the document itself, not the stylesheet. The stylesheet > | > should provide style, not content! > | True, but you can't do that in current versions of XHTML, and maybe not in > | future either. > Well, these implementations we're discussing aren't in any current versions > of CSS, either. No, I mean that CSS can be used on any version of HTML. In other words, future versions of CSS (CSS7!) will still be usable with XHTML 1.0. > | How do you suggest we specify altenative aural content in XHTML? > > Generally speaking, there is no need to put alternative content for pure text, ne? I'm refering to grouped hypertext and other optional data that aural browser users don't want to hear again and again. *This is a WAI-WCAG requirement*: as per: (for example) http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-HTML-TECHS-20000920/#group-bypass "13.6 Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group. [Priority 3] " We could/should do that with CSS! > As for images, they have alt, which replaces the image with text. Objects can have > textual content that won't be rendered by UAs supporting the embedded media. And > any future replaced elements should follow the same model of having a fallback. You're missing the point here entirely: I'm using this to replace navbars, and other content in the DOM styled as optional. That's a valid WAI use that isn't currently implementable in XHTML. It should be required that we have it in CSS(3). > So, as far as I can see, there is already alternative content available > for that which is unrenderable by the aural browser. Am I missing something? If you are refering to the 'content' property, I am suggesting we have an explicit 'alt' property as well. > | It's a style concern. > How so? You're replacing content, not specifying how to style what's there! So explain the CSS content: property then! If that's a style, then so is this... Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer President and Founder WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/
Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 06:05:20 UTC