Tom
an interesting idea!
(and yes, my mail got held up for a few days so Martyn's note was last week)
Glad if you are pleased about 'acccessibility' - it seems it's working.
But re the CSS idea:
>Would there be value in using the CSS media types?
>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html#media-types >:
>ALL Suitable for all devices.
>AURAL Intended for speech synthesizers. See the section on aural style sheets for details.
>BRAILLE Intended for braille tactile feedback devices.
>EMBOSSED Intended for paged braille printers.
>PRINT Intended for paged, opaque material and for documents viewed on screen in print preview mode. ...
>SCREEN Intended primarily for color computer screens.
>TTY Intended for media using a fixed-pitch character grid, such as teletypes, terminals, or portable devices with limited display capabilities. ...
>Tom Worthington FACS HLM [log in to unmask] Ph: 0419 496150
I am not sure if you mean using these for definitions? I think one problem is that even with these definitions, we would have to specify if there is, or is not, content using those types and so we could not use the definitions as they are. We picked the others from work done using them and I think they are probably about as close as we'll get to the coverage we need. The other suggestion that was canvassed was to use the cc/pp stuff but again, it is a bit different and that makes all the difference - users do not get to choose what they want if we rely on cc/pp.
Others might have something else to say - please let us know!!
Liddy
|