- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:19:33 +1000
- To: wai-xtech@w3.org
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 02:11:06PM +0100, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > Providing fallback inside the new proposed <video> and <audio> elements is > no different from fallback inside <object>, so architecture-wise I see no > difference. Correct, and that's a sufficient reason for including such a feature in the design. It shouldn't be controversial. The decision was taken a long time ago in HTML that such alternatives should be explicitly associated with the content to which they relate. Assistive technologies, authoring tools, testing tools, etc., benefit from this decision, by virtue of the semantics captured in the markup. For user agents that don't support the rendering of alternatives, the cost is negligible: it is necessary only to parse, and ignore, this aspect of the markup. However, in practice, accessibility reasons are sufficiently important to constitute a prima facie case for implementation.
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2007 00:19:49 UTC