- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:51:52 -0500
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>"Embedded" is a poor choice of words. The Working Group may not >>understand that <embed> isn't an HTML element, and that elements >>like <object> and attributes like longdesc call *other* files into >>being. This is to be contrasted with alt text (always present in >>the source document) or the possible case of enclosing alternatives >>inside nested <object> elements. >> >>Hence SVG and movie clips aren't "embedded" in Web pages at all. >>They are separate files called by the source document. > >The term "embedded" was suggested because SVG 1.1, section 2.3 >"Options for using SVG in Web pages" [1] says, All right. Use the term in that context, even though the original author cited misuses it. (The rare case of text equivalents inside <object></object> is another one.) But fix the guideline, please, to say something like "embed or call." You could use "reference" as a verb if you absolutely have to. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2004 18:59:08 UTC