- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:51:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: w3c-wai-hc@w3.org (HC team)
to follow up on what Dave Raggett said:
>
> The media issue for Braille is something I think we can defer
> given the future proofing in the current spec.
>
Almost. The following language is too restrictive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. A case-sensitive match is then made with the set of media
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
types defined above. Entries that don't match should be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ignored. In the example we are left with screen and print.
^^^^^^^^
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The media type names listed in this specification should have
"predefined" semantics, not "exhaustive" semantics. There should
be room in the letter of the language spec for the immediate use
of alternatives to the predefined names.
One medium clearly missing from the current list is the
character-cell array. That's a media type that is interfaced to
the WWW past, present, and future. And it includes the
refreshable Braille display and TTD as well as the DOS console
and VT-100. It does not make sense to lump it with pixelated
screens.
-- Al Gilman
Received on Friday, 26 September 1997 16:51:57 UTC