<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED DUPLICATE - Export slides as single HTML only shows text, no images" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143181#c9">Comment # 9</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED DUPLICATE - Export slides as single HTML only shows text, no images" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143181">bug 143181</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:quikee@gmail.com" title="Tomaz Vajngerl <quikee@gmail.com>"> Tomaz Vajngerl</a> <pre>(In reply to stragu from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=143181#c8">comment #8</a>) > > Thanks, Stuart. > Just one thought: if HTML is to disappear as an option, and given that PDF > gets a lot of criticism accessibility-wise, what would then remain for an > accessible export? A third-party extension that might not ever be created? I > am very new to how features are judged to belong to extensions or core, but > I don't think an accessible SVG (or whatever else accessible format) export > should be an optional extension that might or might not exist. > Am I missing something? HTML won't disappear as an option, just the wizard and other options besides the single-document HTML export. A good HTML5 export (not one that creates images of the slides and presents those in a html page) should still be implemented (IMHO), but is not a priority in any way. The current single-document HTML export is mainly used for indexing, that's why it is very basic, but anyone is free to work on it to make it more advanced.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>