W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: [techs] Summary of techniques teleconference 14 January 2004

From: Al Gilman <al.gilman@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:45:27 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040121093202.0201a800@pop.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>, WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

At 06:51 PM 2004-01-20, Joe Clark wrote:

>>>"Embedded" is a poor choice of words.

Wrong.  'Embed' is a widely recognized term for the general notion.
It is head and shoulders the best term available for what is meant, here.

  http://www.google.com/search?q=%22embedded+objects%22

Review the literature on OLE, that is to say, "Object Linking and Embedding."

Note that the difference between 'linking' and 'embedding' in Microsoft OLE,
for example, has nothing to do with the separate data and handlers.  That is
true for both epithets.  It is just a difference as to whether an
auto-refreshing reference or a frozen state of the object is integrated into
*the display,* (not into the data).

Al

>>>The Working Group may not understand that <embed> isn't an HTML element, 
>>>and that elements like <object> and attributes like longdesc call 
>>>*other* files into being. This is to be contrasted with alt text (always 
>>>present in the source document) or the possible case of enclosing 
>>>alternatives inside nested <object> elements.
>>>
>>>Hence SVG and movie clips aren't "embedded" in Web pages at all. They 
>>>are separate files called by the source document.
>>
>>The term "embedded" was suggested because SVG 1.1, section 2.3 "Options 
>>for using SVG in Web pages" [1]  says,
>
>All right. Use the term in that context, even though the original author 
>cited misuses it. (The rare case of text equivalents inside 
><object></object> is another one.)
>
>But fix the guideline, please, to say something like "embed or call." You 
>could use "reference" as a verb if you absolutely have to.
>--
>
>     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
>     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
>     Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2004 09:45:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:54 UTC