On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Cheryl Homiak wrote: > Oh, I've already done that; the results of that is what the whole thread has > involved. > He seems very accommodating, but js isn't out of 50[ compliance, if I understand > correctly. As I posted last week, simple statements such as "js isn't out of compliance" are inaccurate. Yes, they may use scripting languages, but they must provide functional equivalencies for all elements. That cannot be defined, furthermore, in terms of "my browser, but not yours," either. The law is not partial that way. If they don't know how to make js work, they'll have to drop their js, no matter how fond of it they are. > And while links-2.1pre2, which I am using, supports js, it is somewhat > limited. > > > Cheryl > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blinux-list@redhat.com > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list > -- Janina Sajka, Director Technology Research and Development Governmental Relations Group American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175 Chair, Accessibility SIG Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF) http://www.openebook.org