💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005162.gmi captured on 2023-11-04 at 14:09:31. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

<-- back to the mailing list

[SPEC] Shouldn't Alt-Text be standarized?

devel at datenbrei.de devel at datenbrei.de

Thu Feb 11 17:16:59 GMT 2021

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Am 11.02.21 um 17:26 schrieb Miguel de Luis Espinosa:

As I was reviewing the spec, following Jason McBrayer bit of advice, I came to this part
...
Very nice, but what exactly do I put there?
---As far as I read this you can put there whatever you want.

What I think about this is, that like in Markdown one could technically tag or mark what kind of code or fixed format text this is. This would force no client to implement anything, but would open possibilities to those, that want.

If we use this instead for alternate text, what means a different use, namely a human readable and maybe longer description of the following text, the first more technically use is not available anymore.

If I would have invented this I would technically mark the fixed text as in Markdown and additionally add those text on the closing uptickt - we have the leading and the closing upticks, why not use them both?

Especially for blind people it would be good if a screenreader could technically know what kind of fixed width text this is and handle it accordingly while still providing (blind) human readable meta information.

Just my two €-cents...

Martin