- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:21:55 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10709
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> 2010-09-24 05:21:54 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> iframes in particular are often used as part of the UI of a page in a
> "transparent" way - there's some controls in it that are part of the
> tab cycle, but the user is generally not made aware of the fact that
> there even is a subframe. In such a case, it seems like there is no
> specific need to give a description of the iframe.
Such "iframe" elements should be given the "seamless" attribute.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-iframe-element.html#attr-iframe-seamless
So long as HTML5 includes authoring requirements, I support requiring "title"
for "iframe" elements that do not have the "seamless" attribute. It's something
authors tend not to think about: a validator error would raise awareness of
this issue, and it's a pretty easy fix for authors to make.
> As for the <frame> element (as opposed to <iframe>), it is not conforming
> in HTML5, so it doesn't make sense to have authoring requirements for it.
Agreed.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 05:21:58 UTC