RE: the text in images issue

I said there where two good choices.  I didn't claim that they were great
choices!  (smile)
In any case, both SVG and CSS are better than graphical text.  The
inadequacies of bitmaps (especially for words) are well documented.
I am glad you are bullish on CSS.  What's your prognostication for SVG?  I
doubt that raster images will be disappearing all that quickly, but
hopefully their use will mostly be for photographs.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of William Loughborough
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 9:24 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: the text in images issue
> 
> 
> 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.

Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 10:00:01 UTC