W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Summaries of issues around checkpoints 1.4 and 1.5

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:51:08 -0800
Message-Id: <200402102051.MAA23874@patagonia>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Cc: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> Could proponents of the current wording please point to people with
> disabilities alive and using the Web today who experience barriers or
> inaccessibility because some encoding other than Unicode was used?

Here's an example: this checkpoint applies to PDF files that use fonts without 
ToUnicode tables, so there is no way to determine which character is 
represented by a glyph.

I don't think the checkpoint is trying to outlaw other encodings; only to make 
sure that the identity of the characters is unambiguous. Is there a better way 
to phrase this to make the distinction clearer?
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 15:52:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:33 UTC