- From: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:15:37 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 08:03:31PM -0500, Access Systems wrote: > well put, I am mostly in this discussion concerned with maintaining > usability to the max number of users but how far back in OS, browser, > hardware should we consider supporting. I can still use my Dos 5.1 Ah, technology would be a different matter I think ... I assume - knowing the dangers of doing so - that we can all agree that it is the content that should be accessible [1], and not the technology in itself. I believe - again, knowing the dangers - that we also agree that for the foreseeable future it is HTML and XHTML which will be the main packaging for content at the moment it is delivered to a user-agent. Anything above this basic level - be it CSS, Javascript, Ecmascript Flash or SVG - would be best considered as content enhancement techniques.[2] With this in mind, I would suggest that a 'minimum requirement' would be for a user agent to know how to handle HTML [3] and know how to survive [4] XHTML. The bottom line: a 'minimum requirements' browser shouldn't break content. [1] Accessibility - in my view - is achieved when the user/visitor can partake of the content in such a way that he, she or it can assimilate it after their own capabilities. [2] "Content enhancement" - in my view - are such techniques which when used can make the content more attractive or even more accessible given that support for them exist; whilst at the same time not reducing accessibility when support does *not* exist. [3] HTML - regardless of version - comes with the built-in magic that an unknown element should, or could, be ignored but the content of it retained. [4] 'Survive' is my way of writing 'not blow up'. Even Netscape 4, which is not known for it's excellence in parsing, does this. -- - Tina Holmboe
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 20:15:40 UTC