Interesting, I had missed that title was valid most places - I've been bit
by the places it's NOT valid and assumed that where it's not explicitly
listed it wasn't permitted.
What's interesting to me about the Mozilla piece - Quite apart from their
anti-IE rants, which I hate when people stoop to that is - is this ...
"Why doesn't Mozilla display my alt tooltips?
<snip/>
When the alternative text is shown in a tooltip, some authors write bad alt
texts, because they intend the text as auxiliary tooltip text and not as a
replacement for the image. ('Bad' in the sense that the textual alternative
is less useful for people who don't see the image.)
When the alternative text is shown in a tooltip, other authors don't want to
supply textual alternatives at all, because they don't want tooltips to
appear. (Again, making things harder for people who don't see the image.)
There is another attribute that Mozilla shows as a tooltip: title. In fact,
the HTML 4.01 specification suggests that the title attribute may be
displayed as a tooltip. However, this particular display method is not
required and some other browsers show the title attribute in the browser
status bar, for example."
Reality check is that ntop is not very usable w/o it's graphical and visual
component. But that's not a reason to make it totally inaccessible.
Still, please do remember that ntop is about displaying information in a
visually pleasing way across the real world, not about W3C conformance.
Where possible, I've moved the generated code closer to W3C, but we still
use a number of constructs because they look good, even though they're not
W3C compliant - the table CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="1" attributes being
the most common.
That said, if somebody want to work their way through the code and send me
patches to add appropriate title= text (and perhaps rework some of the alt's
while you're at it), I'll be happy to apply the after 3.0 is out the door.
I do see that this has some value, it just doesn't interest me personally.
What I would be interested in is some ideas and feedback on a mechanism to
capture - similar to what I'm now doing with version.xml - the user agent
strings for the browsers connecting to an ntop instance. I know what you
are running on, not what is connecting to you... How would you feel if your
ntop instance tracked the user agent string and periodically - say as part
of the version.xml recheck - pushed that data up to us in summary form?
Right now, I get log records like this (EVERY web server gets them - whether
they do anything with them is another story):
68.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [20/Feb/2004:01:22:57 -0500] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 3699
www.burtonstrauss.com "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT
5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)" "-"
The problem is mapping the agent string back to a real (or imaginary)
browser. What I don't want to do is upload an endless list of slightly
different strings all with a count of '1'. I'd really like just the high
points - product/version - but I don't want that kind of complex and fragile
string processing in ntop either. How many user-agent strings are there??
Who knows - check this page out http://www.pgts.com.au/pgtsj/pgtsj0208c.html
(although it can be slow to load) for a partial list...
-----Burton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike
> Hunter
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:14 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ntop] alt and title tags - Mozilla
>
>
> On Feb 19, "Burton M. Strauss III" wrote:
>
> > > 2. As much as I hate mozilla for doing it, it does not
> display a tooltip
> > > for "ALT" tags in images, only for "TITLE" tags. They have made an
> > > argument that displaying tooltips for ALT tags is non-w3c
> compliant. I
> > > won't go into all the crap here, but if ntop provided the
> text as both a
> > > TITLE and ALT, it would display properly under mozilla. Thanks for
> > > considering it.
> >
> > Yeah and then the generated html would fail w3c validation!
> >
> >
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#h-13.2
>
> Did you try it? :) I dl'd index.html form mozilla.org, added a
> title to one
> of the images and it did validate.
>
> > 13.2 Including an image: the IMG element
> > <!-- To avoid problems with text-only UAs as well as
> > to make image content understandable and navigable
> > to users of non-visual UAs, you need to provide
> > a description with ALT, and avoid server-side image maps -->
> > <!ELEMENT IMG - O EMPTY -- Embedded image -->
> > <!ATTLIST IMG
> > %attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events --
> > src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
> > alt %Text; #REQUIRED -- short description --
> > longdesc %URI; #IMPLIED -- link to long description
> > (complements alt) --
> > name CDATA #IMPLIED -- name of image for scripting --
> > height %Length; #IMPLIED -- override height --
> > width %Length; #IMPLIED -- override width --
> > usemap %URI; #IMPLIED -- use client-side image map --
> > ismap (ismap) #IMPLIED -- use server-side image map --
> > >
> >
> >
> > Start tag: required, End tag: forbidden
> >
> >
> > Title isn't even OPTIONAL, it's so it's not permitted. Even a
> design tool
> > as lenient as HomeSite 5 doesn't have any provision for it.
>
> Actually, you've misinterpreted something here. The tags you list above
> are tags *specific* to img. "title" is, in fact, valid for all but a few
> tags, as indicated below:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/attributes.html
>
> The purpose of the title tag is described here:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#adef-title
>
> Mozilla's position on the issue is written up here:
> http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html#alttooltip
>
> > Even the graphics on Mozilla's own pages don't use title:
> >
> > <img
> >
> src="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/buttons/getfirefox_la
> rge2.png"
> > width="178" height="60" border="0" alt="Get Firefox">
>
> A good point :) I assume that mozilla.org doesn't wish to title those
> images for aesthetic reasons. I have friends who hate the pop-up
> tooltips,
> and I assume mozilla.org's authors are of their mindset. (This all got
> started from me trying to figure out one of the host-profiling
> icons...which are totally awesome BTW.)
>
> While I don't agree with mozilla's zealousness on this point, I believe
> they are technically correct. Especially in light of mozilla's motivation
> -- better accessibility for disabled users -- I think that it would be
> worth it for ntop to incorporate the title tag, and I hope you and Luca
> will consider it.
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Ntop mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop
>
_______________________________________________
Ntop mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop
