Re: html 5 and accessibility issue

anne,

> <dl>
>  <dt> 1st terme </dt>
>  <dd> 1st terme description </dd>
>  <dd> 2nd terme description </dd>
>  <dt> 2nd terme </dt>
>  <dt> 3rd terme</dt>
>  <dd> 3rd terme description</dd>
> </dl>
>
> with no way for AT to know that 2nd terme description is actually the
> 2nd terme description and not the second description of the first terme

>Actually, no, you can't. What you're doing is not conforming to either
>HTML 4 or HTML 5.

How is the code of aurelien's example definition list not conforming
to html 4.01?
>From validating his example and reading: 10.3 Definition lists: the
DL, DT, and DD elements
[http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.3]

I can't see any problem.

On 30/06/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:07:24 +0200, aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
> wrote:
> >>> - dt/dd need a reel relationship like the for attribut on label
> >>> mechanism
> >>
> >> Why is there a need for this? The specification defines exactly what
> >> the relationship is between them. Much like HTML4 did.
> >
> > because actually i can do :
> >
> > <dl>
> >  <dt> 1st terme </dt>
> >  <dd> 1st terme description </dd>
> >  <dd> 2nd terme description </dd>
> >  <dt> 2nd terme </dt>
> >  <dt> 3rd terme</dt>
> >  <dd> 3rd terme description</dd>
> > </dl>
> >
> > with no way for AT to know that 2nd terme description is actually the
> > 2nd terme description and not the second description of the first terme
>
> Actually, no, you can't. What you're doing is not conforming to either
> HTML 4 or HTML 5.
>
>
> >>> - actually their is no fallback content for embed element
> >>
> >> Why is that needed for plugins?
> >
> > maybe i misunderstand the function of the embed element. Is this just a
> > way to link to the plugins ? or a way to use it to show some content
> > like the object element
>
> Embedding a plugin.
>
>
> >>> - the only fallback content for iframe elements is pure text, i think
> >>> we need to authorize an "a" element to link to the content of the
> >>> iframe
> >>
> >> Doesn't the <iframe> do that already? I'm not sure <iframe> needs
> >> "fallback" content at all.
> >
> > I don't know if all UA do that but it's not the actual spec
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/frames.html#edef-IFRAME
> > If all the UA do that, it's no enough to just say there is no need to
> > author fallback, i think we need to say that this fallback content is
> > given by the UA  with something like  IFRAME: "content of the src
> > attribut on the iframe element"
>
> Huh? <iframe> is just a way to embed another web page. Surely that page
> should be made accessible to the user. Not sure why you need fallback
> content for that.
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> <http://www.opera.com/>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org

Received on Saturday, 30 June 2007 15:50:21 UTC