[uf-new] Re: figure microformat
Andy Mabbett
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Sat Feb 23 13:44:13 PST 2008
In message <F5FA4141-71BC-4716-8816-338E59A2CF68 at tobyinkster.co.uk>,
Toby A Inkster <mail at tobyinkster.co.uk> writes
>There's two main reasons I decided against using alt as a legend in the
>draft. Firstly, the simplest reason, this counts as invisible data --
>except in Internet Explorer which displays alt attributes as a
>roll-over tooltip.
Considering "alt" as invisible is a very graphical-browser centric view
of the web.
>Secondly, and more importantly, accessibility issues with the ABBR
>pattern have shown that we shouldn't hijack accessibility-related
>elements and attributes without a lot of thought.
No, but we shouldn't ignore them, either.
> Otherwise we may end up with results like:
>
> <div class="figure">
> <img src="foo" alt="Picture of a crazy foo">
> <span class="legend">Picture of a crazy foo</span>
> </div>
That's bad alt text, even without the contents of the span.
>The "caption" and "legend" classes appeared to be semantically
>identical.
"caption" appears to be what is meant here. Os is this another US vs. UK
English issue?
>Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> Turning to specifics, I think the dismissal of the "include pattern"
>>is
>> unfortunate and needs to be reversed
>
>
>The draft has always explicitly said that the include pattern *may* be
>used.
But only in limited circumstances.
>It suggests that the ABBR pattern *should not* be used
You don't appear to be answering me, here...
>because frankly I can't see any reason why it *should* be used.
...but I don't agree that that's a good premise to exclude something,
even as a "should not".
--
Andy Mabbett
More information about the microformats-new
mailing list