- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:58:33 -0500
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Steve, > Why make an exception only for alt? If a document or email is PRIVATE, there > are many other conformance requirements that could be waived The email loophole seems to go back to Mail.app: "Mail.app and other mail clients don't put alt attributes on images generated in email" - Maciej Stachowiak, April 11, 2007. [1] "I can only imagine it [alt] being useful as an advanced feature for experts. Normal people won't understand why a mail program would prompt them to type in some text about an image, that will then not be visible to them or their recipient." - Maciej Stachowiak, April 11, 2007. [2] Ian cited Maciej's [3] email as THE reason for the redefinition of the image element from a Vlad Alexander type definition [3] to optional alt in bug 9098 [4]. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010837.html [2] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010963.html [3] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010837.html [4] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504 -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 16 July 2010 08:59:01 UTC