W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: the title and name tags for frames (migration)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, Claus Thøgersen <scsct@mail.hum.au.dk>, karl@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009251141070.19611-100000@tux.w3.org>
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that an implementation based on the mid-1990s was
bad at the time. But I do believe that it is important to work on current
specifications where they are available, as HTML 4.0 has been for some
years.

(Actually telling the machine one thing and the user another can be good
design - for example it is easy for a machine to read a URI, but easier for a
person to read something in a "natural" language - for example czech. But I
think that's heading away from the topic.)

cheers

Charles

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Al Gilman wrote:

  At 10:51 AM 2000-09-25 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >Claus,
  >
  >Having only a good name attribute will owrk for Jaws, but the HTML
  >specification provides the title attribute on almost all elements (including
  >frame and frameset). The title attribute is designed for a human-readable
  >explanation of what an element does - the name attribute on a frame is a
  >machine-readable one.
  >
  
  AG::
  
  The situation is more complicated that this.  The 'name' attribute was
  there first, so it is not fair to say that implementations which display
  the 'name' attribute are not "good implementation."  It is also bad format
  design to tell the machine one thing and the user something else.  
  
Received on Monday, 25 September 2000 11:45:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:06 GMT