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

Re: Validity

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:54:12 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hi Roberto,

At 10:20 4/11/2005, Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:
I think that the problem is specifically vendor-oriented.
Flash for accessibility features (that is available only with ms windows + 
jaws/hpr and IE) need to have <embed> element because they have implemented 
MSAA for work with embed.

Isn't this an element of "practical reality" that can be used as an 
argument against requiring valid code at level 1? How does using <embed> 
harm accessibility? Should WCAG ban content just because it uses a certain 
technology or because the content (in spite of accessibility features of 
the technology) is inaccessible?

Sorry for the tune of this post, but it's incredible that we need to force 
wcag 2.0 for conform with a plugin that is accessible only in one OS and 
with a specific configuration (i don't know what would happen if the 
company was Microsoft instead of Macromedia).

Based on what you write above, it is not "Microsoft instead of Macronmedia" 
but "Microsoft and Macromedia" because the former company is responsible 
for MSAA.


Christophe Strobbe

Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 10:55:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:59:39 UTC