- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 05:57:44 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 17:36 +0200 UTC, on 2007-06-30, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:28:58 +0200, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote: >> On Jun 30, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:53:39 +0200, aurelien levy <levy@tektonika.com> >>> wrote: >>>> - actually their is no fallback content for embed element >>> >>> Why is that needed for plugins? Is "plugin" relevant? Isn't the only relevant point that the element represents a resource that, when for some reason it isn't available, needs a textual alternative? >> That's when fallback content is needed: for non-text media (that is >> sometimes serviced through plug-ins). > > Isn't that a problem with the plugin? Can you describe how we can leave the the technique/syntax to provide textual alternatives up to plugin developers and still comply with our design principles' Priority of Constituencies and Universal Access? I'd think that if plugin developers are left to provide their own means for authors to provide textual alternatives, then that's not going to work. Then authors cannot predict which plugin will be used in a given browsing environment, so they cannot predict in what format they need to provide the textual alternative. And of course when the plugin isn't available it cannot make the textual alternative available either. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 04:01:57 UTC