- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:11:38 -0500 (EST)
- To: Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr (Chris Lilley)
- Cc: jongund@uiuc.edu, w3c-wai-hc@w3.org (HC team)
to follow up on what Chris Lilley said: > > One proposal, which would have provided richly styled generated text, as > rejected as being too complex. A following proposal was rejected as being > too simple and not meeting the needs of designers. Murray Maloney argued > persuasively that generated text was needed, and at his suggestion the CSS2 > specification has a placeholder for the section on generated text. > Would you give us references to the failed proposals (too complex, too limited) so we have an idea of the range a solution would fall in? This next one is tough, but would be enormously helpful. For the too-complex version, what are the 3-5 main ideas or capabilities used in that proposal, and how would _you_ rank these in order of increasing difficulty of selling them to implementors? -- Al
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 1997 10:14:53 UTC