Do you think it's a service I should be paying for? Although not expensive, > I'm wondering why the 'functionality' needs to be highlighted at all? > Surely, it's the same as saying we'll charge you separately for css or html > markup? > I'm naturally cynical/suspicious about what suppliers claim in the pre-signoff phase. Generally everything's a lot easier, more stuff is included and nothing is impossible.....until the ink hits paper ;)
In this instance I'd be asking them why the site needs a text-only alternative! It smells rather like they're going to build a table-based site or some other thing that's not accessible, then create a whole second version instead of doing the first one the right way. Alternatively they may just be setting up an easy way for users to disable styles. But you should get them to explain a bit further. cheers, Ben -- --- <http://weblog.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
