W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: R: NEW: Issue #1544

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:22:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200508122122.j7CLMWUm029798@asterix.andreasen.se>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

On 12 Aug, Matt May wrote:

> I think the entire discussion of validity vis--vis <embed> is missing 
> the point. The <embed> element is still around in HTML 4.01 and XHTML 
> 1.x, and will be forever. We simply can't wish it away. It's the last 

  This comes as a surprise to me. I've not seen EMBED mentioned in
  HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, XHTML 1.1; nor even in HTML 2.0, 3.0 or 3.2.

  There *is* no EMBED element in ANY official HTML version - not to my
  knowledge. That knowledge may be flawed.

  However, there is a point missed - that much I know. As is said, ad
  nauseam here and everywhere else, OJBECT doesn't work in all
  user-agents.

  That's fine - *colour* don't work in all browsers either.

  When the Flash animation doesn't work, the alternative content should
  kick in. Graceful degradation. There *is* nothing to see here; let's
  move on.




> Is there a strong accessibility case to be made for allowing <embed>? 
> Yes: there is no known technique that remains valid (i.e., uses 
> <object>) _and_ offers ATs access to the internal accessibility features 
> of Flash. 

  http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/06/30-mapping.html - ref. WCAG 1.0
  checkpoint 10.4: "Until user agents handle empty controls correctly,
  include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas."

  Ref. WCAG 2.0: "Deprecated".

  Well, "Until User-agents handle OBJECT, allow EMBED." - they do,
  today, handle OBJECT. Those that do not should be as deprecated as the
  above checkpoint.

  I seem to recall that much ado was made of back-to-top links, and the
  fact that any UA not supporting that was really broken. Well, any UA
  not supporting OBJECT *is* really broken - it's not as if its a new
  part of HTML.

  The baseline that has been much discussed for WCAG 2 should, at the
  very least, state that an UA must support HTML, and handle such
  elements of HTML as it doesn't understand with grace.





> <object>) _and_ offers ATs access to the internal accessibility
> features of Flash. The ATs don't handle <object> correctly. Now, we
> can shake our fists at the ATs and force validity anyway, but we'd be
> ignoring the elephant in the room, _and_ actively damaging Flash

  No, we are not ignoring the elephant. However, instead of insisting
  that the elephant MUST REMAIN in the room, we explain that THIS room
  and THAT room don't support elephants, and it'll have to go outside
  while we make do with a cat.





> The <object> and <embed> elements have been used together for quite
> some time to deal with Microsoft/Netscape conflicts. It seems that's
> a reasonable approach today. If a custom DTD is necessary, that might

  Graceful degradation is the reasonable approach today, as it was
  yesterday. Accessibility does NOT mean that everybody and his
  mother-in-law absolutely MUST see the Flash; but that everybody
  without exception should be able to get to the information contained
  in it.

  Why is this being left out of W3C efforts lately?

-- 
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Friday, 12 August 2005 21:22:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT