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 17:32:22 +0200
Message-ID: <44D75D06.20406@w3development.de>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Christophe Strobbe schrieb:
> They also knew/know that the last Working Draft of XFrames dates from 12 
> October 2005 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xframes-20051012/), not 2002.

Ooops, I (and, as it seams, the XHTML 2.0 WD authors) didn't check that :-)

> <blockquote cite="Johannes">
> If there is a need for describing the purpose of frames and their 
> relationship, there should be a way to do this
> a) in markup languages that know the frames concept, and
> b) with user agents that don't implement frame/@longdesc?
> If there is no need (any more), please clarify why.
> </blockquote>
> 
> Some arguments I've come across:
> 1. Frame already has the title attribute, which one can use if the name 
> attribute does not suffice (the name attribute does not allow spaces, so 
> you can write "TopNav" but not "Top Navigation").
> 2. Is there a real benefit in a detailed description of a frame or a 
> frameset? (Implied answer: no.)

The use this for arguing in appendix D :-)
-- 
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
                             (Te Deum, 4th cent.)
Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 15:32:46 GMT

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