- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:33:55 +0000
- To: "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
- CC: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Jan, You wrote: > 1. Windows does allow HTML fragments to be stored on the clipboard > but other platforms may not, so my wording is too strong. OSX and iOS support HTML copy/paste, I think the *nix platforms do as well, although command line apps tend to have their own buffer. >From the proposal, I wonder if "Text Alternatives for Non-Text Content are Preserved" and "Restructuring and Recoding Transformations" need to be separate? The core case seems to be: - A content transformation is executed by the authoring tool. - If the input includes accessibility information, and the output can include that information, at least one of the following is true: (With the a-d from "Restructuring and Recoding Transformations" according to WCAG). That seems to cover text-alternatives, optimisations and restructuring/recoding as well? I remember long discussions about the difficulty of creating a matrix of formats and their accessibility features, however, I think that was covered by the (a)-(d) notes? I.e. If the tool doesn't know how to map one type of content to another, it should perform a check. If it knows about some features in the target format (e.g. text-alternatives) but not others, it could do (a) for that, and (b / c / d) if it detects other features that it does not know how to deal with? If I'm being overly simplistic please ignore this, but I was struggling to see why text-alternatives & optimisations had their own SCs, as there seems to be a general principle. Kind regards, -Alastair
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 14:34:26 UTC