W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: meta refresh (3.7.5.3. Pragma directives)

From: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:01:20 +1000
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070808100120.GA5480@jdc.local>

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:06:53PM +1000, Ben Boyle wrote:
> I would like the editors to consult with WCAG when they review this
> part of the specification.
> 
> I'd personally prefer meta@refresh be deprecated. In my work I'm bound
> by WCAG so it essentially is deprecated (for me) anyway (and maybe
> many of you feel that is sufficient - it isn't, imo). I'd prefer HTML
> 5 be aligned with WCAG (it almost always is). In lieu of this, a
> simple acknowledgement would go a long way: how about a Note
> referencing WCAG checkpoints 7.4 and 7.5. (I still think a more
> well-rounded outcome will come from consulting the WCAG group. 

There's a strategic choice to be made here.

Option 1: specify refresh in HTML 5, in a way that takes into account
considerations deriving from accessibility requirements. At a minimum, it must
be possible to conform to both HTML 5 and the User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0, in which the notable requirement here is checkpint 3.5:
http://www.w3.org/TR/uaag10/guidelines.html#tech-configure-content-retrieval

Preferably, HTML 5 should encourage implementation choices that are consistent
with UAAG 1.0, not only in the present context but also in connection with
other algorithms and statements in the spec that affect the user interface and
relevant APIs.

Option 2: deprecate refresh. The risk here is that scripts would then be used
by authors to achieve the same result, reproducing exactly the problems that
have been raised in this thread. Also, since HTML has historically allowed
user agents to interpret documents which include implementation-specific
extensions, and this permissive approach is likely to continue in HTML 5, the
consequence of deprecating refresh is likely to be that user agents would
implement it anyway, albeit as an extension, possibly without taking the
difficulties discussed here into consideration.

It might be better, therefore, to specify refresh, but to make it compatible
with UAAG 1.0. As it stands, I don't think step 22 of the algorithm stated in
the HTML 5 draft is compatible with UAAG 1.0 or with accessibility-related
concerns.
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 10:01:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:03 GMT