- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- cc: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca>, love26@gorge.net, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hmmm. A minor quibble - RTF was the format I was using when I learned about style sheets, and used what is a pretty simple User Intereface for producing and editing them (although they still end up in a propreitary format - a nice feature of CSS is that if I really get stuck I can manually read and adjust the code, although the goal is not to have to...) Charles McCN On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Bruce Bailey wrote: > 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? Yes, absolutely. RTF is only modestly more accessible than PDF (or Word or WordPerfect for that matter). Sure, its a shared non-proprietary format, but there are no public specifications for "validity", let alone "accessible". Besides, all of those formats are presentation oriented -- as opposed to HTML which was MEANT to share information (and is being ABUSED when used for GUI formatting effects). -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2000 11:46:44 UTC