[whatwg] ALT and equivalent representation
Shannon
shannon at arc.net.au
Mon Apr 21 01:35:56 PDT 2008
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
>
> But whether we need a mechanism for denoting differing img elements
> combine to form a single image is a very different question from
> whether alt should be optional or required. You seem to be conflating
> them.
>
>
How can <img alt> or <img alt=""> not be related to making alt optional?
Both represent a total lack of information with no explicit relationship
to any other element. There is no way a parser can resolve whether this
information is supplied previously or not. If the parser can't tell then
it can't validate the alt requirement - thereby mandating that alt (that
is the text, not the empty attribute) be optional for a conforming
document (as far as a validator knows anyway). Once alt text becomes
optional then it is likely that many designers/templates/wysiwyg
applications will simply insert alt="" into every image to pass
validation without consideration for blind users. It is this situation I
am trying to avoid. A valid document should provide valid alt
information, not empty ones. An altgroup supports this - empty alt tags
do not.
Shannon
More information about the whatwg
mailing list