- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:32:25 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > Philip TAYLOR wrote: >> Lachlan Hunt wrote: >>> It is questionable whether embed needs to have fallback content [...] >> >> <embed> /absolutely/ needs fallback content. > > For what purpose? Accessibility, technical limitations, or other? Accessibility first and foremost, but in the general sense of that word rather than "accessible for people with special needs". Accessible if (a) there isn't a plugin; (b) the user doesn't have the plug-in; (c) the user has the plug-in but the content is still inaccessible. > The question of whether or not it needs fallback really depends on the > problem you are trying to solve. If the problem is accessibility, then > it has been stated several times that the plugins and content should be > made accessibile by themselves, which is outside the scope of HTML. Exactly. Therefore we should not discuss what is, and what is not, desirable in embedded media and in embedding plug-ins, but what is /needed/ in HTML to support accessibility whether or not the media and the plug-ins are themselves capable of generating accessible content. Philip Taylor
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 09:33:43 UTC