- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, Claus Thøgersen <scsct@mail.hum.au.dk>, karl@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that an implementation based on the mid-1990s was bad at the time. But I do believe that it is important to work on current specifications where they are available, as HTML 4.0 has been for some years. (Actually telling the machine one thing and the user another can be good design - for example it is easy for a machine to read a URI, but easier for a person to read something in a "natural" language - for example czech. But I think that's heading away from the topic.) cheers Charles On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Al Gilman wrote: At 10:51 AM 2000-09-25 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >Claus, > >Having only a good name attribute will owrk for Jaws, but the HTML >specification provides the title attribute on almost all elements (including >frame and frameset). The title attribute is designed for a human-readable >explanation of what an element does - the name attribute on a frame is a >machine-readable one. > AG:: The situation is more complicated that this. The 'name' attribute was there first, so it is not fair to say that implementations which display the 'name' attribute are not "good implementation." It is also bad format design to tell the machine one thing and the user something else.
Received on Monday, 25 September 2000 11:45:24 UTC