- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:04:08 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> Yes it doesn't seem to degrade gracefully but that is the current > situation anyway, and this way the new generation will benefit while the Not if authored by a competent author who would accept that the effect is not a reasonable one to attempt. Understanding the medium is a key part of design. > older will be served the same and will have to wait for the image to kick > in. That's an accessibility no-no. Pages should not be authored to be dependent on text as images. (If the page isn't essential for me, I'll just go to the next search engine hit if I abort the download then find it unusable.) > *If the designer wants to use a light text-color on a light-colored > document bg and use a PNG to define the BG of the foreground object, the > image somehow has to be loaded for the text to be read properly, and > because that may not be possible, the designer is withold from using it at > all. Or consider using a tool optimised for graphics rather than one optimised for textual information. > > *We have a damning limitation in the current CSS specs, that will be > effective long enough. I think you may have unreasonable expectations of CSS. It's for hinting styling, not specifying exact appearence. There are lots of things that it is not good at as a result. If you want precise control of appearance you should be using SVG or PDF, not HTML.
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 04:40:29 UTC