- 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