W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: dynamic content

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:57:35 +0100
Message-Id: <199901271557.QAA11726@www47.inria.fr>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

> >I disagree with requiring NOFRAMES and NOSCRIPT all the time.
> >
> I agree with your comment about NOSCRIPT, but at this time I can't see how
> we can get around *not* having NOFRAMES as P1.  At some point this should
> be handled by the user agent, but until then it is a big enough problem
> that I can't see making it a P2.  
> 
> >For NOFRAMES, see
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999JanMar/0044.html 
> >(note that I still would like A.9.1 to be lowered to P2, I can't find
> >it in the current issue list)
> >
> I moved it to the closed issues since I thought others agreed that at this
> time it needs to be a P1.  If this was a misinterpretation we should put it
> on the agenda for tomorrow's call.

It is handled by lynx, emacs/w3, and maybe others, and on the other
hand, I don't how many agent support the NOFRAME tags (e.g. I don't a
see a way in my Netscape to say : use NOFRAME)

People accessing frame without an index (built by the UA) and without
NOFRAME can still access information, it's just not convenient because
you have to move to the next line and up rather randomly.

Lastly, can you please point at the agreement or argument that this
should stay a P1 since I posted my message above ? I looked for it
before reopening this issue and I couldn't find it in the archive.
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 1999 10:57:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT