- From: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:57:35 -0400
- To: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Bruce 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). We have not been able to create an instance where an rtf file are inaccessible (with correct use of images and layout, that also applies to html documents), though pdf file are almost always inaccessible (for now). I can see some justification for providing alternatives for proprietary Word or Wordperfect documents (in many cases developers include an rtf equivalent of these), but not for an html equivalent of rtf documents. If someone could demonstrate an inaccessible rtf file, It might help me understand why this format is not an acceptable accessible alternative for any of the above file formats. > Sure, its a shared non-proprietary format, > but there are no public specifications for "validity", let alone > "accessible". Does this mean by default that it is inaccessible because its accessibility has not been documented? I have a hard time justifying this without some concrete evidence that demonstrates rtf in an inaccessible form. I have an easier time making html documents inaccessible than I do making an rtf files inaccessible. Specifications http://www.geocities.com/~vmushinskiy/fformats/files/rtf.txt Microsoft's Specs ftp://x2ftp.oulu.fi/pub/msdos/programming/formats/rtfspec.zip -- 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 12:04:03 UTC