9098 2010-02-20 11:48:57 +0000 Correct the img element definition. Replace with suggested text. 2013-05-09 13:08:31 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified Macintosh All RESOLVED FIXED http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-img-element a11y, a11ytf, a11y_text-alt, TrackerIssue P3 normal --- 8171 1 laura.lee.carlson faulkner.steve cooper faulkner.steve ian mark.sadecki+w3c mike public-html-a11y public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 32474 0 laura.lee.carlson 2010-02-20 11:48:57 +0000 -- Quote [1] -- The HTML5 spec defines the <img> element as an element that "represents an image". The spec then defines alternative text (textual content) as "fallback content". What's wrong with this? These definitions suggest that the visual content (the image) is more important than the textual content. As a result, to many people, if the primary purpose of embedding an image is achieved, the secondary or fallback purpose (textual content) can be skipped or given cursory effort. The following is a better way to describe the <img> element that gives equal weight to the visual and textual content: "The img element represents content that can be rendered visually (as an image) and textually. The src attribute provides visual content in the form of an image and the alt attribute provides textual content. The content in the src and alt attributes must convey equivalent meaning." The principle behind this definition is already in practice in a publicly available HTML reference. [2] Conclusion The <img> element's visual content and its textual content are equivalent in meaning and should therefore be of equal importance. How elements are defined in the specification influences tool vendors, educators and ultimately Web site creators, so that clearly defining the correct use of HTML elements can over time improve the use of HTML. -- Unquote -- This bug relates to HTML Issue 31 [3] and the Change Proposal [4] to "Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers" rationale to uphold the Structural Integrity of HTML which states: Complete structure for the image element requires both src and text alternatives. src is to sighted users as text alternatives is to some users with disabilities. * Omit the src attribute and sighted users have no content. * Omit text alternatives and some users with disabilities have no content. Without both a src and a text alternative the img element is incomplete. [1] The quoted text is from a blog post from someone who has no confidence in the W3C HTML WG or WHATWG process. http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/correct-img-element-definition/ I pass it on here for consideration. [2] http://www.xstandard.com/en/articles/xhtml-reference/img/ [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31 [4] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126#Structural_Integrity_of_the_Language 34338 1 ian 2010-04-01 21:54:47 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: That's what I had originally specified, back in 2005. See for instance the spec as it stood in 2006: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/2006-01-01/#the-img However, people complained about this, giving some pretty compelling arguments that this is wrong, e.g.: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010837.html (This is not the only e-mail on the subject, but I cite it as it is the one that resulted in the spec changing.) Objectively, it seems that the latter e-mail has a more compelling case, unfortunately. 37609 2 laura.lee.carlson 2010-08-18 13:02:18 +0000 Change Proposal for this bug: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504 38326 3 cooper 2010-08-31 14:06:04 +0000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Aug/0124.html The bug triage sub-team believes the HTML A11Y TF should take up this bug. Additional notes may follow in a separate comment. 39013 4 cooper 2010-09-14 16:15:09 +0000 Bug triage sub-team has added reference to this bug from ISSUE-31. 87424 5 mark.sadecki+w3c 2013-05-08 14:21:00 +0000 Bug triage team has agreed that this is being addressed by ISSUE 31 and should be REOPENED and ASSIGNED to Steve Faulkner. 87426 6 faulkner.steve 2013-05-08 14:39:35 +0000 (In reply to comment #5) > Bug triage team has agreed that this is being addressed by ISSUE 31 and > should be REOPENED and ASSIGNED to Steve Faulkner. (In reply to comment #5) > Bug triage team has agreed that this is being addressed by ISSUE 31 and > should be REOPENED and ASSIGNED to Steve Faulkner. already resolved via WG decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0452.html