- From: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:35:31 -0400
- To: love26@gorge.net, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
William Loughborough wrote: > WL: Somehow "available for download" doesn't sound like Web stuff per > se. If a file is "downloadable" it might be in ASCII and be accessible > and not "require" conversion into HTML? As to rtf (I think that means > "rich text file"?) I would suspect the same. Is "not required" to convert rtf into HTML the general consensus of the GL group > WL: As I understand the guideline Greg brings up it has to do with stuff > posted to the Web rather than items downloadable via the internet? > How would you then distinguish between rtf and pdf, pdf files justifiably requiring an accessible alternative format. Often the two appear together on web sites as alternatives of the same document, rtf file provided as an (accessible) alternative for users who can't view pdf files. Download is perhaps the wrong word, though semantically speaking everything we view or acquire from the Web is downloaded. Both pdf and rtf files can be downloaded for viewing, though current browsers will automatically display them if the the file extensions have been associated with a plugin or helper app. My question is, if a developer includes rtf copies of word processed documents on a web site, are they obliged to include an html version in order to satisfy guideline 11.1? -- Greg Gay Web Projects & Instructional Design Centre for Academic and Adaptive Technology University of Toronto 416 978-4043 ICQ 9020587
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2000 10:41:25 UTC