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: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:08:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca>
cc: Marti <marti@agassa.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0007210001350.19827-100000@tux.w3.org>
This should be the first key in our decision - whether the content can be
(and is in a particular case) marked up with the information that we ask for
in WCAG. For many features this can be done in RTF - there are some that I
haven't been able to make work, like associating transcripts for
audio, although that can be done by including an appropriate file type in the
first place.

So I suspect that the first condition of 11.4 - If after best efforts you
cannot make an accessible page - is often not triggered in the case of
well-constructed RTF.

That would be my approach - what do people think?


On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Greg Gay wrote:
  >From a cognitive perspective, RTF provides formatting that  aids comprehension,
  by signifying heading levels, lists, and a variety of other meaning associated
  formats, as well as layout features that make text more readable. HTML
  formatting does much the same thing. These formats are not found in ascii text
Received on Friday, 21 July 2000 00:10:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:33 UTC