W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Unresolved Issues

From: Nir Dagan <nir@nirdagan.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:06:15 -0400
Message-Id: <199909151605.MAA24381@dark.brown.edu>
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.


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.)
>>  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
>>I think Nir has answered these pretty well.
>>  Regards,
>>  Nir.
Nir Dagan
Assistant Professor of Economics
Brown University 
Providence, RI

Received on Wednesday, 15 September 1999 12:05:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:16 UTC