W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: Is it a problem that WCAG 2.0 doesn't require paying attention to NOFRAME content?

From: Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:17:29 +0200
Message-ID: <44D73D69.1020300@w3development.de>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Andrew Kirkpatrick schrieb:
> 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via
> "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images,
> graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map
> regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic
> objects, ASCII art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets,
> spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user
> interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.
> [Priority 1] 
> 
> I don't get how frame (or frameset, really) elements are "non-text
> content".

I don't get it either. But I assume frames were listed here because in 
1999 there were user agents that could not handle frame references (the 
first HTML recommendation that introduced frames was published at the 
end of 1997, that is one and a half years earlier).
-- 
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
                             (Te Deum, 4th cent.)
Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 13:18:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT