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: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:56:12 -0000
To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001201c3f029$231749c0$6601a8c0@w3cishida>

My guess is that the intent was to say something along the lines of
"represented in the Unicode *character set*".  Unicode/ISO 10646 is the
document character set for HTML 4.0 and XML, meaning that although any
encoding can be used, characters used must be found in Unicode to fit the
reference processing model. (See
http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-doc-charset.html )

Joe, I'd be quite interested in any specific information you have about
issues when representing Thai and Chinese in Unicode.  I'm not aware of any.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clark
> Sent: 10 February 2004 19:32
> To: WAI-GL
> Subject: Re: Summaries of issues around checkpoints 1.4 and 1.5
> >     "All text can be decoded into words represented in Unicode."
> This isn't an accessibility issue in the first place. You 
> simply have to declare your character encoding (either in 
> HTTP headers or the <meta> element or both). Unicode, while 
> desirable, is not the only encoding that works, and for some 
> languages (like Vietnames, Thai, Chinese), the "legacy" 
> encodings work better in real-world browsers.
> 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?
> --
>   Joe Clark  |  joeclark@joeclark.org
>   Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
>   <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 17:58:03 UTC

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