W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Status of RTF format?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
To: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca>
cc: love26@gorge.net, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0007201110310.7512-100000@tux.w3.org>
In order to comply with WCAG there need to be various things included, like
text alternatives for non-text objects, markup to specify the language of
things, that they are abbreviations, a seperation of presentation information
from content, and so on.

Some of these things can be achieved in RTF, some I don't believe can, and in
some cases there is a huge gulf between can and routinely are.

I don't know that there is a consensus in the group (unless everyone agrees
with me <grin/>) - what would you suggest it should be?

Charles McCN

On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Greg Gay wrote:

  My question is, if a developer includes rtf copies of word processed
  documents on a web site, are they obliged to include an html version in
  order to satisfy guideline 11.1?
  
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2000 11:20:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:05 GMT