On 5/19/05, Isofarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd urge that the wording here should also include accessibility > concerns, especially to encourage accessible alternatives to to be > adopted when the content is known to be inaccessible - e.g. images, > sound files, movies, flash. > > HTML for instance has a number of accessible alternatives to > inaccessible constructs - images have a src attribute, flash and > embedded movies allow the child of the object element to contain > accessible alternatives to the content.
Presumably you mean "images have an alt attribute", but otherwise +1. Note that HTML 4 and beyond *require* an alt attribute for images, but does not similarly require non-script alternatives to script elements. Nor does it explicitly require accessible alternatives to embedded media such as Flash or video; the mechanism is present and encouraged, but ultimately optional. Since the last time this came up on the list, I have relaxed my position, and I am now fine with defining a feed format that encourages, but ultimately does not require, accessible content. Note that inaccessible content is A Bad Thing(tm) and in some contexts content producers will be legally or contractually obligated to provide it, but I will not go so far as to say that the format itself should force you to provide it. The format spec is the proper place to STRONGLY RECOMMEND that you provide accessible alternatives to inaccessible context (and we already have sufficient mechanisms to provide such alternatives), but I will no longer go so far as to call it a MUST. -- Cheers, -Mark
