W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: plain text has its points

From: Jamal Mazrui <empower@smart.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 14:14:46 +0400
Message-Id: <199812071814.NAA15530@gemini.smart.net>
To: <asgilman@access.digex.net>
CC: <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I think HTML is the second most universally accessible format after plain
text.  It should generally be possible to render a literary work in 
plain text.  The format itself is not stimulating to a reader, 
but the content should be coherent without embedded markup.  
Project Gutenberg standardized on plain text for a reason!


On 1998-12-07 asgilman@access.digex.net said:
   NCc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
   Nto follow up on what Kynn Bartlett said:
   N> Actually, HTML is better because it allows for embedding of
   N> structure and meta-content that doesn't exist in plain
   N> text.
   NThere are two sides to this coin.  Markup, in use, can become a
   Ncover for laziness in verbalizing the message.  The tags may
   Nsiphon information out of the text, not just add new information.
   NTags are a little like Cookies in creating a way for programs to
   Ntalk behind the user's back, and possibly abuse this capability.
   NThe cross-linking between the WAI guidelines and related W3C
   Ndocuments is a major benefit.  I don't mean to dispute the upside
   Npotential of hypertext and multimedia.  But there is more to the
   Nway people trust plain text than tool obsolescence.

Net-Tamer V 1.11.1 - Registered
Received on Monday, 7 December 1998 13:15:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:02 UTC