Jessica Enders wrote:
I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered
accessible, to the extent that Australian federal government agencies
must provide electronic documents in an accessible format.
Is there a list of accessibility features that a format must allow, or
does the Australian federal government merely require "accessible"?
I am not particularly familiar with RTF however it's my understanding
that RTF may be considered a different serialization of the binary .doc
format, and by "different" I mean plain text:
{\rtf1\ansi{\fonttbl\f0\fswiss Helvetica;}\f0\pard
This is some {\b bold} text.\par
}
Yet another different serialization of .doc is into XML and this is
called ECMA-376 a.k.a. OOXML, or at least OOXML as it was in 2006 (and
from here on when I write OOXML I do mean OOXML as of 2006).
It's my understanding that RTF is only as accessible as OOXML and
therefore one could take the approach of looking for OOXML accessibility
reviews.
So, taking that approach, here is some criticism of OOXML accessibility
that apply equally to RTF:
http://tinyurl.com/yo6q4y
http://holloway.co.nz/ooxml-accessibility.pdf (an article of mine)
http://blogs.sun.com/korn/entry/talking_with_microsoft_s_gray
http://blogs.sun.com/korn/entry/cotinuing_the_conversation_with_gray
--
.Matthew Holloway
http://holloway.co.nz/
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
