Jessica Enders wrote:
I should clarify that I'm not a Microsoft-basher! The only reason I
mentioned it is that ownership of a standard might be considered, by
some, to compromise accessibility.
Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general text
documents. I think this makes the situation a little bit messier.
Finally, I would definitely recommend semantic HTML as a first choice -
we're just looking at the other options that might be available if it
isn't.
RTF is a lot like PDF - owned by a company but generally regarded as an
open standard (I think Adobe might have formalized that at some point).
RTF has been around so long (and is essentially so simple) that there
just aren't any hidden bits to trip you up, as far as I am aware.
When I developed and managed the NZ Government Web Guidelines (now
showing in its latest incarnation at http://www.webstandards.govt.nz/),
I specified RTF as acceptable after much consultation with accessibility
advocates, so I think you'll be pretty safe specifying it.
But you're right - HTML is better.
Cheers
Mark Harris
Technology Research and Consultancy Services Ltd
(Like Rae, I saw the light and got out :-)
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
