[whatwg] <img> element comments

Alexey Feldgendler alexey at feldgendler.ru
Sat Nov 4 09:11:02 PST 2006

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:43:02 +0600, Spartanicus  
<spartanicus.3 at ntlworld.ie> wrote:

>> The problem with allowing omission of alt depends on the meaning of  
>> <img> without alt. If <img> without alt is defined to mean the same as  
>> <img> with alt="", then the problem is that all cases when people omit  
>> the alt attribute because they don't care will end up with mangled  
>> meaning.

> I don't see that as changing anything. Documents containing content
> images without alt content are broken regarding this aspect, and they
> will remain so if <img> without an alt attribute is considered equal to
> <img> elements with alt="".

<img> is somewhat broken in any case. If I was making it up from scratch,  
I would treat missing alt same as alt="" and define it to mean  
"semantically valuable image for which the author did not provide an  
alternative text". For purely decorative images, if such thing is to exist  
at all, I would define a separate attribute like "decorative", so that  
semantic images surely don't end up as decorative by mistake.	

Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com

More information about the whatwg mailing list