Re: Status of RTF format?

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

> 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

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