- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:34:46 +0200
- To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
At 00:47 23/05/2006, Andi Snow-Weaver wrote: <quote> As Cynthia suggested, I looked at each of the referenced WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to ensure that we have a WCAG 2.0 technique that covers it. We do for all except WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information. Should we recommend adding an advisory technique to cover this? <quote> The comparison between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 (www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixD.html) says about checkpoint 3.1: <quote> This is baseline-dependent. The guidance on choosing an appropriate baseline will include information about the advantages of technologies with accessibility features. This also maps to sufficient techniques on using semantic markup listed in How to Meet Success Criterion 1.3.1 (level 1) and How to Meet Success Criterion 1.3.4 (level 2). </quote> That said, I agree it would be nice to have a MathML technique. Regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2006 08:32:08 UTC