RE: Is it a problem that WCAG 2.0 doesn't require paying attention to NOFRAME content? from Andrew Kirkpatrick on 2006-08-08 (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from July to September 2006)

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:47:26 -0700
To: <tina@greytower.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <53744A0A1D995C459E975F971E17F5640116CA63@namail4.corp.adobe.com>

>   Would you, please, explain how "Provide a text equivalent for every
>   non-text element ... this includes ... frames ... " is not clear on
>   requiring a text equivalent for frames?
> 
>   It might be better if "a linear equivalent for frames" had been the
>   wording, but I see nothing unclear about the checkpoint.

What is unclear is what needs the text equivalent.  The frame element?
The frame element's content?  To me it seems that this is referring to
the need to provide an equivalent for the frame container, not the
content.  This is further supported by the existance of the following
example in the normative WCAG 1.0 document:

Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 02:47:50 UTC