- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:48:50 +1000 (EST)
- To: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
- cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Scott, is what you mean that the browsers should make the underlying HTML, or an equivalently marked-up rendering scheme, available to assistive technology plug-ins? In this case, it seems like a good idea if the browser wants to be a universal one. (As opposed to a browser that is concieved as useful for a small number of people, such as EIA, and could justify the 'bloat' argument.) To use the guidelines as a legal stick would require that they were much more tightly written, and thingswere much more tightly specified than is desirable, since it would make it difficult to accommodate advances in technology at a sufficient rate to be valuable. And it would seem to me that lawyers, who have the necessary background to create documents that can be used in legal arenas do not generally have the background reauired to formulate guidelines. Besides which, the law in the US and the law in Australia and the law in the UK operate differently. Are we writing an International treaty, or a useful document for people trying to get the best product to the market the fastest? Charles McCathieNevile
Received on Monday, 28 September 1998 03:14:35 UTC