W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:00:55 +0100
To: "Rob Sayre" <rsayre@mozilla.com>, "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: "'Geoffrey Sneddon'" <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.upszntwridj3kv@zcorpandell.linkoping.osa>
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:18:55 +0100, Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 2/21/09 1:56 PM, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
>> Maybe my suggestion of changing 'should' to 'must' is too simplistic -  
>> what
>> do I know?  But until such time as this fundamental issue is resolved,
>> <canvas>  now has a pall cast upon it that will continue to haunt it.   
>> So fix
>> it now, or deal with it later.
>
> Change 'should' to 'must'. Hmm. I we made that change, which of the  
> following examples would conform?
>
> 1.) <canvas></canvas>
>
> 2.) <canvas> </canvas>
>
> 3.) <canvas>&nbsp;</canvas>
>
> 4.) <canvas>fallback</canvas>
>
> 5.) <canvas><section hidden>fallback</section></canvas>

It depends on what the <canvas> represents, just like with fallback for <img> and <object>. It's not machine-checkable.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 12:01:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:32 GMT