- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:23:53 -0800
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 08:22 AM 12/18/00 -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>two good choices: SVG or CSS
I'm afraid that because of the (perceived?) inadequacies of both, as well
as their inherent "backward incompatability", most authors find neither of
these AT THIS TIME to be "good choices".
However, having said that (grudgingly, in a way), it seems that since the
path to Recommendation is at a minimum 6 months and since before any
checkpoints are allowable there must be demonstrably usable
implementations, there is no reason not to look forward enough to use both
in our document. If we turn out to be wrong, it's just a matter of changing
some words, if in fact they turn out to be "good choices" then it would be
silly not to account for them. Both technologies have significant notes
about the accessibility advantages they present and unless we rescind those
papers, we must respect them.
IOW we are betting that a year from now the fact that CSS was only
partially implemented in the year 2000 will seem quaint and the idea of
using raster graphics for much of anything will be close to unthinkable.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 09:23:59 UTC