- From: Nir Dagan <nir@nirdagan.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:06:15 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I was referring to the title attribute in HTML. It could be that title (should) have different interpetation in SMIL. Nir. At 11:26 AM 9/15/99 -0400, Marja-Riitta Koivunen wrote: >Some comments >> > >> >Issue 12 - Is "title" a disability access feature? Could title be used >as a >> >text equivalent? (My notes suggest that I saw it being used as such but I >> >don't recall what it may have been.) >>ND >> The general answer is that title is not for equivalents. It is for giving >> suplementary information. One exception would be <frame> where title may >> serve as "a link >> description" to the function of the frame. This is shortcoming of HTML, or >> more >> precisely of the way frames were imposed on HTML by Netscape. >> >> The title of <link> also serves as a link description but it suplements >> the rev and rel attributes (although these are optional). > >MK: In SMIL title is strongly recommended for every element, so it would be >too bad it that could not be used to give brief characterization of the >element (I thought that is the function of title anyway?). Some elements in >SMIL don't have any other information available e.g. A and ANCHOR elements >(even the link text in A is outside the SMIL doc, there is only a URI to a >file containing the text). > >I think we just have different levels of equivalency starting from title, >which is not always very clear, alt that tries to express function more >verbosely, and longdesc that tries to give the most complete equivalent >description. > >>CMN >>I think Nir has answered these pretty well. >> >> Regards, >> Nir. >> > =================================== Nir Dagan Assistant Professor of Economics Brown University Providence, RI USA http://www.nirdagan.com mailto:nir@nirdagan.com tel:+1-401-863-2145
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 1999 12:05:28 UTC