W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: EMBED element

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:42:55 +1000 (EST)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
cc: WAI Markup Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980729142031.12119K-100000@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
EMBED, if it were an HTML element, would require simple
solutions: P1 - provide an alternative representation which is accessible
P2 - use NOEMBED

But it would violate the 'use a recognised DTD' guideline, and the 'use 
elements properly' guideline, as well as the 'don't use deprecated 
elements' guideline

Because it is not part of the spec, there is no reason why any user agent 
should implement it. (That's the point of defining a DTD.) <SPAN 
LANG="LA" TITLE="therefore">Ergo</SPAN> the accessibility appraoch is 
going to be 'assume that this is not understood at all. To comply with 
the principles of accessibility you have to provide an alternative mechanism 
for ALL users. 

This is based on the principle that accessibility is not determined by 
whether product X supports something. In the first instance, accessibilty 
requires that UA's which conform to the specs have some way of dealing 
with an object. In addition, there are some cases where a UA may conform 
to the specs, but there are still problems providing an adequate 
representation of the object. D-links fit into this category

As a third-party, developing tutorial materials, I can happily discuss 
EMBED, or anything else I like, to my heart's content. But unless it is 
part of a W3C recommendation it makes little sense for for the guidelines to 
cover it until all the problems withing the specs are solved, and then 
there will probably be other important ways to spend volunteers' time.

Charles McCN
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 1998 01:05:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT