On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:25:12 +0600, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm... Is img ever non-presentational? Radical thought: Deprecate
img.
Why? Aren't there semantic images?
Maybe instead deprecate img for presentational images, leaving it only
for semantic images (with
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:25:12 +0600, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm... Is img ever non-presentational? Radical thought: Deprecate
img.
Why? Aren't there semantic images?
Might be. As Anne suggests, a picture of a product might be a good
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Quoting Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hmm... Is img ever non-presentational? Radical thought: Deprecate
img.
A company logo?
You could make an argument that trademarks have semantic value, but
it's kinda weak, because you can identify the company by name
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:11:29 +0600, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe instead deprecate img for presentational images, leaving it only
for semantic images (with non-empty alt required).
Sounds like a good idea. We should probably also consider how
object fits into this,
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 19, 2006, at 14:05, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Without the alt attribute img becomes meaningless for devices
(and people) who can not interpreted images.
Good intention, yes, but let's consider the practice:
Suppose there is an authoring tool that has a design goal
On 1/19/06, Tyler Close [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/19/06, Jim Ley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, they'll just disable it, as it does them directly no benefit and
has a cost, so if you educate them enough to make a decision, they
will not decide to be tracked.
Why hasn't this happened to
Given the new parsing rules for comments (all those internal discussions...) I
was trying to write some testcases for how they are defined now.
# p!-- -- --PASS!--/p
However, from the specification it is not entirely clear what should happen with
!--/p. Well, perhaps it is, but then I'd like
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:54:34 +0100, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Alternatively, the tool makers could give up the requirement of
human-supplied alt text and just generate an empty alt text by default
without asking. (Considering that the tool itself--not just
Hi,
From: Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've considered making alt= and omitting alt be conformant equivalents.
I haven't really thought much about it yet though.
Lynx shows the file name if alt= is ommitted. IIRC, HTML 4.0 previously
recommended that UA's should use the file name if alt is
In http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#relation I think the text
on :required and :optional should be clarified so that it is clear that these
pseudo-classes only apply to elements to which the required attribute
applies.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
10 matches
Mail list logo
