W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: opinions sought about RTF

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: "John O'Rourke" <JOROURKE@fcc.gov>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9905051221020.3421-100000@tux.w3.org>
RTF is covered by checkpoint 11.4 - where possible use W3C recommendations.

RTF (and PDF for that mattter) are not appropriate web content on their own.
Reasons for this include the fact that they do not provide for alternative
content as well as HTML or well-written XML applications, and the fact that
they rely on particular software which is not as widely available as web
browsers (beyond accessibility for people with disabilities this applies to
mobile devices, most voice-based systems for browsing the web, etc).

RTF is a format for transferring information between particular applications
which produce otherwise incomapatible output. For that purpose it is very
appropriate. Likewise, PDF allows control of layout to ensure printing in a
particular way, and is a good format to do this, but is not a particularly
good format for accessibility. One of the common problems with PDF is that
the generation of pdf often uses images to present text, for example when
producing PDF from scanned text.

that's my 2 cents worth

Charles McCN

On Wed, 5 May 1999, John O'Rourke wrote:

  Hi everyone,  
  I am in the middle of providing the FCC with a full range of web accessibility options.  Does anyone have opinions or ideas about the appropriate use of RTF?  Better yet where is RTF outlined in the latest authoring guidelines?  
  John O'Rourke

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 1999 12:36:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:04 UTC