💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 002643.gmi captured on 2020-09-24 at 01:03:49. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
mbays at sdf.org mbays at sdf.org
Thu Sep 10 18:47:03 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I strongly recommend against this. The W3C has been trying to get HTML
authors and browser makers to _only_ display, in tooltips, text in
`title` attributes.
[...]if we make the alt text easily visible it will no longer be
accessibility text and will turn into a miscellaneous-purpose field.
Good point.
I guess it will be abused that way even if most clients offer no easy way to view it, as "easter egg" text for those who read the source. But yes, if the alt text is typically shown then this abuse could easily become normalised. So I retract my encouragement to always show alt text. Thanks for explaining my mistake!
How about if clients have an easily toggled switch between showing preformatted text and just showing alt text? I guess that would still lead to more easter-egging, but maybe not too much? It seems there's a tradeoff between discouraging inaccessible uses as human-readable text, and discouraging inaccessible uses as machine-readable text...
For the closing "```", I still think clients should enforce the rule that no further text on these lines is allowed.
But actually this suggests another possibility: adjust the spec to allow text on the closing line, and have it specifically interpreted as a subtitle to be rendered (however the client likes, e.g. centred). That could divert the pressure to misuse the alt text as a title, and would properly close the extensibility hole.-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: signature.ascType: application/pgp-signatureSize: 195 bytesDesc: not availableURL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20200910/8058774a/attachment-0001.sig>