- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@srl.rmit.EDU.AU>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:30:44 +1100 (EST)
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
- cc: "'GL - WAI Guidelines WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think the problem was that people might suggest "That's impossible. Therefore these guidelines are not internally consistent. Therefore they are rubbish. Therefore I will continue to leave ALT text and NOFRAMES out of my website." (Or some like-minded piece of drivel) I am not sure that this is such a likely scenario, except among those looking for a rationalisation to explain their failure to make an attempt. Those people will probably find another one. Another part of the story is time-dependent. C.1 says "Where possible use a W3C technology..." At the moment there is no W3C recommendation on images, although that may change soon. Likewise scripting languages, and lots of other goodies. So having the 'where possible' clause does allow the guidelines to be interpreted in light of the state of the art at the time of interpretation, rather than at the time of compilation.. So I am happy for it to be there, judiciously used. It seems much better than 'for the moment' or 'until such time as' which we had at one stage for some things. Charles McCathieNevile
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 1998 01:34:52 UTC