- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:03:52 -0800
- To: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@whatuwant.net>, "W3c-Wai-Gl@W3. Org (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:36 PM 11/28/00 -0800, Cynthia Shelly wrote:
>. I offer for your consideration two features
Thank you Cynthia for a "breath of light".
Let us now praise discussing resolutions.
She actually proposed something concrete and the resolutions are: some form
of scripting; tables, including nesting; accessibility features that have
been implemented in some browsers;
I think all three proposals have a lot of merit. There may be others that
would move the "line of backward compatability" forward a bit, for
instance, Java enablement and security/signature/forms stuff. A "feature
comparison"with the UAG might prove useful. Of course the devil in details
and the wordsmithing of all this will be a big effort but perhaps this more
generalized way of looking at any other possibly unspoken assumptions about
what a browser must accomplish would help us resolve the "until" part of
the user agent equation.
The clearest "forward compatability" issues IMO are CSS, SVG, and XML (in
all its flavors). There are already full-blown documents on their
"accessibility-enhancing features" so we will decide just how strong our
espousal of these *inevitabilities* should be. Polish the crystal balls and
keep in mind the time line of getting WCAG 2.0 to recommendation (minimum
of 2 Webyears) and the "when" of widespread use of CSS (already a huge
start done) and vector graphics (Flash, anyone?).
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 08:04:31 UTC