- From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:10:16 +0200
- To: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I fully agree with you. This is because I said: beware to proposal that are not covered and not have backwards compatibility... This could be a point of discussion *if and only if* XHTML WG will implement this inside XHTML 2.0 and this *could* be covered in the future WCAG 3.x... :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com> To: "'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>; "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>; "'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 6:07 PM Subject: RE: ContextHelp vs. Title... ContextHelp may be a good thing, but the WCAG as we have it now states that accessibility features must be supported in at least one prior version and in more than one AT on more than one platform. Just because Freedom Scientific gets the XHTML WG to add it will not make it a viable option for WCAG compliance. ContextHelp is the only useful propriety tag element or attribute that seems to have been well thought out. However, if we let software or AT developers to dictate the standards we will be in the same position we are currently with Netscape and Microsoft. History has shown that format does not work.
Received on Friday, 15 August 2003 12:10:22 UTC