W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Request modification for WCAG 1.0 Errata

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 07:38:18 +0200
To: <chaals@opera.com>, <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: <wai-wcag-editor@w3.org>, <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>, <John_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Message-Id: <200505280135156.SM04792@Inbox>

Also the errata refer to checkpoint 3.3 instead of 3.4.
I agree with Charles: without this clarification people can use .px that are a relative unit (relative to the device)

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Charles McCathieNevile"<chaals@opera.com>
    Inviato: 28/05/05 5.53.12
    A: "wendy@w3.org"<wendy@w3.org>
    Cc: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "wai-wcag-editor@w3.org"<wai-wcag-editor@w3.org>, "public-comments-wcag20@w3.org"<public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>, "John Slatin"<John_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "Gregg Vanderheiden"<gv@trace.wisc.edu>
    Oggetto: Re: Request modification for WCAG 1.0 Errata
      On Wed, 25 May 2005 23:05:36 +0200, Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org> wrote:
    
    > Hello,
    >
    > It seems that we have already included this proposed language in WCAG  
    > 1.0 Errata. Please refer to item 5 at [1]. It says, "Description (and  
    > correction). The note for Checkpoint 3.3 should say something about the  
    > effect of proportional sizing on raster images as follows: "Use relative  
    > rather than absolute units in markup language attribute values and style  
    > sheet property values. [Priority 2] For example, in CSS, use 'em' or  
    > percentage lengths rather than 'pt' or 'cm', which are absolute units.  
    > If absolute units are used, validate that the rendered content is usable  
    > (refer to the section on validation). For example, do not proportionally  
    > size raster images." This is very close to the proposed language below.   
    > Am I missing a nuance or does this entry cover your concern?
    
    The specific problem is to do with the status of the "px" unit as a  
    relative or absolute unit in the terms meant by the checkpoint.
    
    I have argued elsewhere that it is in fact not a relative unit in the  
    sense in which the checkpoint was written, but the CSS specification  
    defines it as relative, since it is in fact relative to the hardware used.
    
    So no, that important nuance is not covered by the erratum.
    
    Cheers and thanks for the response
    
    Chaals
    
    -- 
    Charles McCathieNevile                              chaals@opera.com
              hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
       Here's one we prepared earlier:   http://www.opera.com/download
    
        

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Saturday, 28 May 2005 05:38:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:18 GMT