Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:00:03 0
From: John Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Browsers
Hi Heimo, Sam and Ronald
He>Though to be able to do something with it, it would be necessary to
He>have it a bit more precisely (source, date).
AFAI can recall I read it in the Online section of last Thursday's
(London) Guardian.
He>I suspect too that the formulation of "US based" wasn't like that
He>in the source; rather and probably, it meant webpages made and
He>maintained with gvt instances/ public budget financing.
If my free net access was still available I'd check out their site to
be sure ;-)
Sa>...Such a law, if
Sa>enacted, would probably be nullified by the courts on the grounds
Sa>that it would inhibit freedom of speech. Civil libertarians would
Sa>argue that our 1st Amendment rights give everyone the right to
Sa>express any kind of crazy opinion...
Ro>I doubt that the law would require that the web sites have _only_
Ro>"high contrast" format. Rather, I suspect the law would require that
Ro>website pages be offered in both standard and an _alternate_ "high
Ro>contrast" format...
Sorry for the confusion but I forgot to mention that the report said that
a "high contrast" page version should *also* be available.
Regards
jaygee
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list,
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word
Unsubscribe
as the subject.
You MUST use the same address with which you subscribed!
********************************************************
