Re: [WSG] what is the exact version of FF 3.6 x prior to FF4? [SEC=No Protective Marking]

2011-06-03 Thread Chris Beer

Hi Siobhan

3.6.17 -


On 3/06/2011 11:16 AM, wrote:

Return Receipt

Your   Re: [WSG] what is the exact version of FF 3.6 x prior to
document:  FF4?  [SEC=No Protective Marking]

at:03/06/2011 11:16:59

Important: This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may 
contain confidential or legally privileged information.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is 
strictly prohibited.  If you receive this transmission in error please notify the author 
immediately and delete all copies of this transmission.

List Guidelines:

List Guidelines:

Re: [WSG] Looking for an authority on RTF [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2011-05-24 Thread Chris Beer

Hi Martin

Certainly there is no report or structured analysis I've ever come 
across in that sense.

Myself (as a member of the W3C WCAG Working Group) and the group itself 
would be more than happy to assist you in formulating a response within 
our capacity (currently, debates over what consititues web content 
aside, our line is that if it is marked up according to the general and 
text Sufficient Techniques, then it certainly is as viable (desirable is 
another matter being a propriatary format, given we are technology 
agnostic) as txt or other formats. eg: speaking generally and a bit off 
the cuff, using structured headings, no images, no tables, no columns = 
likely no problem. As with any document, the more complex you make it, 
the harder conformance is to claim. RTF is a topic I am actively 
exploring with group members at the moment, so your email is certainly 

I'd also be happy to put you directly in touch with the Microsoft 
accessibility people who contribute to the group - they will be able to 
answer specific tech spec questions for you around the format.

Anyway - drop me a line off list and I'll be *more* than happy to get 
the dialogue started. I start a new role in around 10 days, and will be 
able to provide my new address then - the address below will 
suffice until then (no point sending you my current as I won't 
be in at work for much of this and next week due to conferences etc.


Chris Beer
chris at e-beer dot net dot au

On 24/05/2011 2:59 PM, Freckmann, Martin wrote:

Hi, all.

I'm looking for a study, a report or some other structured analysis on 
the benefits of using Rich Text Format. I'm looking for an 
authoritative source to support claims that it's a desirable and 
viable format that aids accessibility.

I've tried searching widely, and have not yet found such a resource. 
I'm beginning to believe the case for the merits of RTF is either 
hearsay or folklore.

Please -- I'm looking for a substantial explanation of the merits of 
RTF. One-line opinions, rants against Microsoft or PDF, or advice to 
use HTML instead are all familiar and understood.

With thanks for any help.

Martin Freckmann


The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient 
only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. 
Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use 
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited 
and may result in severe penalties.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security 
Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital 
Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and 
delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.


List Guidelines:

List Guidelines:

Re: [WSG] Document Formats

2010-12-02 Thread Chris Beer

Hi Kevin

You're also touching on accessibility issues there, as well as gov 
business processes, legal requirements etc etc.

One thing I thought worth raising and worth considering though is 
copyright - do you even have permission to alter the format of the 
document as submitted to you? US is different to us, I know, but 
something to keep in mind...

We deal with multiple formats in my workplace constantly. Best approach 
we find, when you can, is HTML first, PDF for print as needed. We try to 
steer clear of using any file format that isn't an open standard (eg we 
don't use.xls when we can use .csv) etc as it can imply inferred support 
or approval for a vendor.



On 12/1/2010 6:52 AM, Erickson, Kevin (DOE) wrote:

Hi All,
The website I work with receives a lot of documents to be posted that
come in the form of Word, PowerPoint and Excel documents. And now, with
the release of the latest versions of Ms Office, they are coming to me
with an X on their extensions. I have information in the footer of all
the web pages for access to free viewers for all documents including
these latest extensions. This may be an adequate CYA but I am not
convinced it is the best practice. I know this must be confusing for
some of our visitors.
I would like to ask any of you if you have had to deal with multiple
document formats and how you handled this for the best user
I am thinking the best practice is to have, first, a browser/HTML
version, second, a PDF version, and after that whatever version the
document was created as, i.e. Ms Word, PowerPoint, etc.
Titlea href=info.html titleTitle Web Page  (Web
Page)/a  a href=info.pdf titleTitle in PDF Format  (PDF)/a  a
href=info.docx titleTitle in MS Word Format  (Word)/a

Thank you very much for sharing your experiences on this,


List Guidelines:

List Guidelines:

Re: [WSG] Data URI encoder

2010-02-10 Thread Chris Beer

Hi Mike

I had a play - wow - I seriously didn't realise that you could do this, 
(although now I think about it, its how Google sends data back to 
themselves in a 1px by 1 px image yes?)

So while I think its a fun tool, I'm wondering what the applications 
actually would be. And are there tools that do the reverse?



On 10/02/2010 10:21 PM, Foskett, Mike wrote:

Hi all,

May I ask the group to critique and comment on this image to data URI 
conversion tool?


Mike Foskett

This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. 
The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco.

Tesco Stores Limited
Company Number: 519500
Registered in England
Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire 

VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31

List Guidelines:

List Guidelines: