Re: talking about text alternatives Re: ALT as required attribute
"Jim Ley" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"David Woolley" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > Images as objects are badly specified though, since the UA cannot know it's > > an image until after it's performed an HTTP GET on the url, it can guess it > > That's what the type parameter is for. No, the type is indicitive, it's not definitive, the type parameter also prevents content-negotiation on the best format of image to return, with object a UA should surely send accept headers appropriate to all forms of content it accepts, with image, it's reasonable to only send image/* types. > > might be, but cannot know. > > > > Equally, what happens with an HTML document returned with a 404 status code > > Because img isn't a first class link either, you lose the information > with the 404. Not necessarily, the 404 could have links to other locations for the resource. > > returned by the server, should the object fallback be used, or should the > > HTML document be used? What about other status codes? At least with image, > > I would expect the fallback. but that way you're throwing away the HTML document returned, and I don't see how a UA can know what the author intended here. Jim.