- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:40:06 -0700
- To: Afternoon <afternoon@uk2.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 03:00 AM, Afternoon wrote:
> On Friday, Jul 25, 2003, at 08:57 Europe/London, David Woolley wrote:
>> If repeatable presentation is more important than strucuture, then you
>> want a page description language, like PostScript or its descendants,
>> PDF and SVG (although currently PDF has better support for providing
>> for providing structure information, amongst these).
>
> Thanks, you mentioned these technologies before several times. I'll
> repeat my previous reply, these technologies are useful, but they are
> not flexible enough to allow content to be delivered to a wide
> audience. They have little or no accessibility or degradability
> features and, if used widespread would limit the web. Please consider
> your suggestion noted from now on.
I'm confused. You say that PDF and SVG have "little or no
accessibility ... features"?
What do you find lacking or unpersuasive about:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SVG-access-20000807/
And to what degree do you find that PDF files (created via
Acrobat 6) are inaccessible?
Surely there is as much danger in your assumption that the Web
is a visual medium -- and HTML and CSS are therefore tools for
presenting a visual interface -- as there is in using either
PDF or SVG.
Can you explain your position on PDF and SVG please?
--Kynn
--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com
Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae
Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 11:40:08 UTC