CivGroups suggestion - Page 2

TCO · January 10, 2003, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Taz
Maybe GP should change his title to Troll?

Oh. I don't troll. That's AH and those big tough mean guys. I'm innocent.

DrSpike · January 10, 2003, 12:18

.......Said the wolf whilst wiping various pieces of lamb from his mouth.

Asher · January 10, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Hueij
I can see now what Markos meant...

Oh, it's true and you probably know it.

ALT has been around longer than TITLE, ALT is supported by all browsers (it's in the W3C HTML spec).

TITLE does the same thing, it's in the W3C spec, and Opera/Mozilla support it but IE doesn't. Why doesn't IE support it? Because some dumbass made it when ALT was already working and then cried about how IE doesn't follow standards.

That's why the people who whine about IE not being fully W3C compliant need to give it a rest.

FrustratedPoet · January 10, 2003, 19:35

Do ALT and TITLE fulfill exactly the same function?

If they do then TITLE seems like a complete waste of time.

Frozzy · January 10, 2003, 20:16

Quick idea... When you click on the Civgroup... instead of taking you to a list of people in that list, take them to the relevant forum. I'd rather read info about what the group is than get the knowledge that Jim Jones, Jed Sanders and Graham Grepo are in the Civ4DG.

This would be better for newbies too

Asher · January 10, 2003, 21:13

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
Do ALT and TITLE fulfill exactly the same function?

If they do then TITLE seems like a complete waste of time.

IIRC, "TITLE" is an attribute inherited because "image" is a type of "element", and all "elements" have a "TITLE" attribute.

"ALT" has been specific to the "img" tag for as long as I can remember, I think since the first HTML spec, and has the same purpose when applied to images, but was around before TITLE.

Mercator · January 11, 2003, 12:48

"alt" is supposed to be a required attribute used as an alternative text when the actual image can't be displayed. It is not really meant to be used for a tooltip text, although that's what it's been used for since there was no other way to do that until HTML4.

"title" is an optional attribute which can be used to give further information and is well-suited for tooltip use.

St Leo · January 11, 2003, 13:20

ALT has been around longer than TITLE, ALT is supported by all browsers (it's in the W3C HTML spec).

Opera uses ALT as text that replaces images for differently abled Opera users and TITLE as the tooltip as is specified by the spec you cite. ALT is supposed to be a thorough description that eliminates the need for the image while TITLE is just the explanatory caption that is displayed as a tooltip. I've just checked and Mozilla also does this right.

Asher · January 11, 2003, 16:41

St Leo, don't you see how stupid that is?

It's another prime example of the stupidity that went into a lot of the W3C's specs.

ALT HAS been used as a tooltip text by IE before Mozilla and Opera both existed, and it works great as the tooltip text.

The W3C people decided in HTML 4.0 released in (what was it, 1999?) to add a new attribute like TITLE which was redundant in purpose and then cry about how IE never follows standards because they support ALT for alternate image-text/tooltips (how it's been since HTML 1.0).