Re: New Topic: HTML and the Visually Impaired [long]

• Mail folder: html-archive
• Next message: Terry Allen: "ICADD elements in HTML"
• Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: New Topic: HTML and the Visually Impaired [long] "
• Maybe in reply to: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: New Topic: HTML and the Visually Impaired [long] "

Date: Thu, 8 Sep 94 15:38:44 EDT
Message-id: <9409081936.AA00299@ulua.hal.com>
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: New Topic: HTML and the Visually Impaired [long] 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)

I forgot the most salient technical point:

In message <9409081911.AA00246@ulua.hal.com>, "Daniel W. Connolly" writes:
>
>One way to do this is to say "As of Jan 1, 1995, HTML includes all
>the ICADD tags." Browser implementors scurry around between now and
>then, and HTML includes ICADD.
>

Given this scenario, imagine January 2:

10,000 ICADD documents hit the web, under the guise of HTML 2.1 or 
some such.

A zillion old browser still exist.

A zillion users see garbage because the servers are sending these
new ICADDD HTML documents to old browsers.

So in fact, there will have to be some format negociation distinction
between HTML-with-ICADD and HTML-without-ICADD.

So we see that browsers must announce support for the ICADD tags.
The only question is whether they say:

	Accept: text/html; level=2.5

or

	Accetp: text/html, text/icadd

I suggest the latter.

Dan