- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:41:45 -0400
- To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> It is sometimes necessary to use pdfs exactly because equivalent >>HTML files don't exist > >What type of content within a PDF is there no HTML equivalent for? You're kidding, right? You can't even do footnotes in HTML. (Oh, but you think you can hack those together with <sup> and a few <a>? But then you've created *endnotes*. What if you want both?) If this question were actually serious, I could give you a list a mile long of practices used in typography that cannot be replicated in HTML. And did you know that you can actually embed multimedia, with captions and/or descriptions, *in* a PDF now? Try *that* in HTML. >>Making the same material available also in HTML, the material would >>not only loose all its historical authenticity, > >How so? Yes, it may lose its visual/presentational values, but the >content should not lose anything, no? Some members of the Working Group fail to understand that presentation *is* content. If you really believe the contrary, can we please just write out your wedding invitations on Bristol board in pink crayon? >That final analysis rests with you, and in my mind it's quite >simple: if you want to be able to claim compliance with WCAG1.0, you >need to address the issue of PDFs. It's been addressed. A wide variety of PDFs can be made adequately accessible to many groups. Time has marched on. >Maybe I'm over-interpreting, but: I would class PDFs as non-text content Except for all that text inside them. >(particularly if the PDF is merely a container for scanned documents), A fair example. > in which case the very first guideline, 1.1, would apply. Why, exactly? -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 17:43:00 UTC