W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>

From: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:46:04 +0100
To: "'WAI-IG'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002701c38687$a640aff0$0300000a@bobthefrog>

I agree with that sentiment, there is a difference between pragmatism
and bullheadedness however I don't think this is one of them. Certainly
opera does not have a problem with Unicode encoding without me having
done anything special. I would not be surprised if Mozilla, Safari and
IE have that facility either, so I don't see this as forsaking anyone. I
merely thinking that on the grounds of accessibility as a justification
the notion of putting text in an image is ridiculous.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of P.H.Lauke
Sent: 29 September 2003 13:38
To: WAI-IG
Subject: RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>


> Let the
> user agents deal with encoding and different languages. 
> Putting text in
> images is merely holding back the progression of technologies 
> that would
> fix this issue properly. I might be a progressive zealot but 
> someone has
> to ;) 

Maybe extreme, but I would liken this to the debacle about sending
XHTML1.1 as true application/xhtml+xml, regardless of possible issues
with
browsers such as IE6...nice in principle, but maybe not the best
course of action in a real-world scenario...
imho, anyway ;)

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 08:46:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT