- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:25:38 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 18/12/2012 16:32, accessys@smart.net wrote: > > not addressed because I have been there and tried it,, yes I have and > use firefox, it is not the same and it is still a bandwidth hog. why > are you so hung up on this, do you sell javascript ??? > > the WORLD is not the same as our world Yanking this back, once again, to the thread starter question, it's clear that WCAG 2.0 reflects "a world" where JavaScript, when coded accessibly, is acceptable as a technology. Does this world reflect the WORLD? And if not, how do we change WCAG's future versions? Because, as was pointed out quite a few times already, the answer to the thread starter question was "yes". P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke ______________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 19:26:00 UTC