- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 13:19:44 -0400
- To: "John O'Rourke" <JOROURKE@fcc.gov>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 12:13 PM 5/5/99 -0400, 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?
>
The summary Charles gave is good. The guidelines advocate that one prefer
W3C formats to RTF. There are some good reasons for this to be the general
rule.
On the other hand, please be aware that the WAI has not systematically
reviewed the capabilities of RTF as a cross-vendor information sharing
strategy, or the results of using RTF export from shrink-wrapped tools
together with HTML filters from third-party sources.
Al Gilman
PS:
Does the Federal Government CIO council maintain any information on
cross-vendor interoperation methods and their flaws and effectiveness? You
may well find that exporting Word 6.0/95 is enough to get you into
currently used versions of WordPerfect and competitors, possibly with more
features and fidelity than afforded by dumping to RTF first.
To get to acceptable HTML it has been suggested it is better to import into
a clean HTML tool such as HoTMetaL or DreamWeaver than to dump RTF as an
intermediate representation.
>Regards,
>
>John O'Rourke
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 1999 13:15:42 UTC