Re: Summaries of issues around checkpoints 1.4 and 1.5

> 
> 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