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

Re: embed (was NEW: Issue #1783)

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:42:06 -0600
Message-ID: <439DB66E.6030307@trace.wisc.edu>
To: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
CC: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I agree that we need to do some additional testing on this. I know that 
Lynx displays the value of alt on <embed> and have some old notes that 
indicate that JAWS at one time supported this technique as well.

This is an area of particular importance when it comes to sufficient 
techniques since there are some fairly large gaps between the 
recommendations in the relevant specifications, or current crop of 
techniques and today's realities of browser and AT support.

-Ben


Michael Cooper wrote:
> Hi Christophe - I think I proposed the <embed> techniques so I thought
> I'd provide background on where they came from. I used a resource called
> HTML Compendium <http://htmlcompendium.org/> that listed all known HTML
> elements and attributes, whether or not they were officially in spec,
> and indicated known user agent support for them. This resource indicated
> that "alt" on <embed>, and <noembed> either inside or outside the
> <embed> element, were known and supported. However, when I last looked
> at the site a year ago it was transitioning from a free to a commercial
> resource and now appears to be completely unavailable and/or taken over
> by a completely different organization. Pot calling the kettle black so
> I don't have a moral right to complain, but I am now unable to provide
> the data to back up what I just said. Since the specs you looked at are
> not fully conclusive I think we can't answer the question without doing
> some browser testing ourselves. Michael
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Christophe Strobbe
> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 8:39 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: embed (was NEW: Issue #1783)
> 
> 
> 
> In issue 1783 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1783]
> 
> Simon Pieters comments on the editorial note on HTML technique H64 ("Is
> it 
> true that noembed can go either beside or inside embed? Is there a 
> preference?"), claiming that embed is an empty element type. However,
> embed 
> is a proprietary extension of HTML, so the truth of such claims depends
> on 
> the implementation.
> In Netscape's documentation 
> [http://devedge-temp.mozilla.org/library/manuals/1998/htmlguide/tags14.h
> tml#1286379], 
> the syntax suggests that there can be content inside the start and end
> tag, 
> but the example uses empty element notation (although this is not 100% 
> certain without a DTD).
> In Microsoft's documentation 
> [http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/objects/embed
> .asp] 
> does not state whether it is an empty element or not; the statement that
> 
> "This element does not require a closing tag." is inconclusive in this
> regard.
> (J.J. Solari's custom DTD 
> [http://www.yoyodesign.org/doc/dtd/xhtml1-embed.html.en#add2] allows 
> noembed and other content to appear inside embed, but that does not 
> constitute evidence.)
> It appears that we need better information from browser manufacturers to
> 
> solve the question in the editorial note.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christophe Strobbe
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 17:42:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:41 GMT