- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:42:55 +1000 (EST)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
- cc: WAI Markup Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
EMBED, if it were an HTML element, would require simple solutions: P1 - provide an alternative representation which is accessible P2 - use NOEMBED But it would violate the 'use a recognised DTD' guideline, and the 'use elements properly' guideline, as well as the 'don't use deprecated elements' guideline Because it is not part of the spec, there is no reason why any user agent should implement it. (That's the point of defining a DTD.) <SPAN LANG="LA" TITLE="therefore">Ergo</SPAN> the accessibility appraoch is going to be 'assume that this is not understood at all. To comply with the principles of accessibility you have to provide an alternative mechanism for ALL users. This is based on the principle that accessibility is not determined by whether product X supports something. In the first instance, accessibilty requires that UA's which conform to the specs have some way of dealing with an object. In addition, there are some cases where a UA may conform to the specs, but there are still problems providing an adequate representation of the object. D-links fit into this category As a third-party, developing tutorial materials, I can happily discuss EMBED, or anything else I like, to my heart's content. But unless it is part of a W3C recommendation it makes little sense for for the guidelines to cover it until all the problems withing the specs are solved, and then there will probably be other important ways to spend volunteers' time. Charles McCN
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 1998 01:05:09 UTC