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

Re: html 5 and accessibility issue

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 05:57:44 +0200
Message-Id: <p062406c0c2acd14b3ba9@[192.168.0.102]>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 17:36 +0200 UTC, on 2007-06-30, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:28:58 +0200, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:53:39 +0200, aurelien levy <levy@tektonika.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> - actually their is no fallback content for embed element
>>>
>>> Why is that needed for plugins?

Is "plugin" relevant? Isn't the only relevant point that the element
represents a resource that, when for some reason it isn't available, needs a
textual alternative?

>> That's when fallback content is needed: for non-text media (that is
>> sometimes serviced through plug-ins).
>
> Isn't that a problem with the plugin?

Can you describe how we can leave the the technique/syntax to provide textual
alternatives up to plugin developers and still comply with our design
principles' Priority of Constituencies and Universal Access?

I'd think that if plugin developers are left to provide their own means for
authors to provide textual alternatives, then that's not going to work. Then
authors cannot predict which plugin will be used in a given browsing
environment, so they cannot predict in what format they need to provide the
textual alternative. And of course when the plugin isn't available it cannot
make the textual alternative available either.


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 04:01:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC