W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

Meta Refresh (was Re: Proposal: 2.4 rewording)

From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:27:49 -0700
To: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <01061023274902.15750@localhost.localdomain>
On Sunday 10 June 2001 12:07, Matt May wrote:

> On a tangent: for the "meta refresh" problem, I think that a technique
> needs to be placed in 2.4 to allow meta refreshes in HTML for site
> redirection ("this site has moved to..."). It is unfortunately necessary to
> do these redirects on many sites, as the designers do not control the
> operation of the server.

Why is it necessary?  

Of course, it's preferable to use a 302 or something similar when one has 
control over the server.  But there are other solutions, like using sym links 
on UNIX file systems, for moved documents.  And there's nothing wrong with a 
simple page that says, "this site has moved to . . ." and gives a link.

The meta refresh is a slick trick and it's easy to implement.  Designers will 
howl if WCAG says not to use it -- I know, I've heard them at training 
sessions.  But there are other ways of doing the job without introducing 
accessibility problems.

When I tell some people they can't just export HTML from MS Word, they get 
upset, too.  But that doesn't mean that MS Word-generated HTML should be 
exempted from the requirement to put alt text on images, or from the 
requirement to use structural markup, or from the requirement to conform to a 
published standard.

In my opinion, WAI would be doing itself a disservice to create exceptions 
based on convenience, when simple (and perfectly "reasonable") alternatives 
exist.

Regards,
-- 
Thanasis Kinias
Vice President & Manager of Information Systems
Optimal LLC
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 02:27:47 GMT

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