On 11/15/25 19:22, Steffen Wolfrum wrote: > Hi Pablo, thanks for the fast reply! > > Ok, and all the other terms in the test file are still correct?
Sorry, Steffen, but I really don’t know. I helped some time ago with accesibility, but I have never used accessible documents myself. I just tested basic test cases and reported what was wrong. `tagging-basic.pdf` should give you an overview on how to get the right results. > Or did something else change, regarding the accessibility requirements? As far as I can remember, there were no other changes. But right now I’m testing issues with fields (which comes from improving digital signatures in PDF documents for “Linux”). So, I can only say that you can use the veraPDF validator and see what may be wrong. But first, it would be extremely sensible to follow the indications from `tagging-basic.pdf` (and maybe `tagging.pdf` [both come with ConTeXt]) first. Sorry, but this is all I can offer right now. I hope it may be of some (or even any) help to you, Pablo ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : [email protected] / https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror) archive : https://github.com/contextgarden/context wiki : https://wiki.contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
