- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:43:36 +0100
- To: "Michael Smith" <mike@w3.org> (tm), "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:16:45 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > I'd still like an answer to my question about the earlier version of > this proposal (where it was called "adom"): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Feb/0507.html > > I asked this on Feb 23, and I never got a response, nor do I recall this > question being answered in the course of the discussions at that time. I don't see any rationale for making it mandatory, since there is no reason to suppose a priori that what makes a given canvas element accessible is the content of the element - it may very well be done outside the element content, while the internal content is used to provide fallback for user agents that don't support canvas (and users who have turned it off). (The fact that both the current spec draft and the navsubtree proposal confuse these two uses of the element content, sometimes requiring that a conscientious author build a second version of the element content in javascript when that doesn't seem necessary, is the basis of why I don't like them). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 08:44:19 UTC