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: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:26:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5130FA560@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> longdesc attribute on FRAME elements was [...] dropped for XHTML.

Okay, so I am poorly paraphrasing what we have in Appendix D:
<blockquote>
because the longdesc attribute type on the frame element type has not been supported and is not defined in XHTML 1.1, the Working Draft of XFrames, or the Working Draft of XHTML 2.0)
</blockquote>

A slightly bigger, but still picayune, issue is that in one place the techniques mention longdesc and D-link:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-frame-longdesc

But following the links there leads to:
12.2 Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone. [Priority 2] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/#tech-frame-longdesc

Following that, one gets one to:
10.2 Describing frame relationships
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#frame-text-equivalent

Which *still* leads to the understanding that robust noframe content belongs to the domain of 12.2.

The misconception, and this is (I believe) where Tina's assertion comes from, is the very next technique!

10.3 Writing for browsers that do not support FRAME
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#noframes
Which references checkpoints 1.1 and P2 6.5.

This is, of course, a good example of one of the tail-wagging-the-dog conundrums we are endeavoring to fix with WCAG 2.0 and its associated resources.
Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 14:27:31 GMT

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