- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
> 2) The list of requirements has requirements that are obviously bogus > in the sense that it's obvious that the requirements aren't > technically necessary to achieve accessibility. I think it's not > credible to suggest that metadata for copyright information or usage > rights is a "must" level technical requirement for *accessibility*. I > think it's also not credible to require voice-optimized codec > availability on the 'must' level, since it should be blatantly obvious > that accessibility would be achievable using a general-purpose audio > codec. Likewise, the accessibility would obviously be achievable by > supporting at least one character encoding that can represent all of > Unicode (e.g. UTF-8), so support for arbitrary character encodings > can't be a hard *accessibility* requirement. To clarify why I used the word "credible": When a list of purported accessibility requirements contains requirements that obviously aren't real *accessibility* requirements, one must suspect that some of the requirements one can't directly see the merit of can also turn out to be something other than must-satisfy true accessibility requirements. Thus, the inclusion on non-accessibility requirements casts a doubt over the other requirements as well. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 10:15:51 UTC