W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: CSS Parsed Unambiguously

From: Christophe Strobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:05:11 +0200
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20060612220133.0319f3e8@mailserv.esat.kuleuven.be>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

At 19:26 12/06/2006, Tina Holmboe wrote:

>On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:44:23AM -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>(...)
> > What we need are examples of things that really happen, (real accessibility
> > problems happening on the web), that do not violate other SC we already
> > have. (this one for example - if it weren't black on black but say black on
> > dark blue) would violate our contrast SC.  Not at the same level - but the
>
>   Ah, but here there is a problem. To say that "black on black" - and I have
>   in my previous posting suggested a real world problem with CSS that can
>   easily result in such a situation - is violating the contrast SC is,
>   in my opinion, taking that SC far, too far.
>
>   Black on black, for - say - a screen magnification user - is such a
>   major problem that I couldn't defend saying it was a "low contrast"
>   one.
>
>   It /is/, however, a problem with syntactically incorrect CSS - and for
>   that reason alone it seems to me a much sharper 4.1.1 should be in place;
>   on requiring not merely "parsed unambiguously", but "syntactically
>   correct".
>
>   Surely it is important that the data formats sent to the UAs and ATs are
>   correctly written, as a bare minimum of requirements?
>
>   I suggest rephrasing 4.1.1 to:
>
>     "4.1.1 Web units or authored components can be parsed unambiguously,
>      yielding data structures in which relationships are also unambiguous,
>      as well as conform to the constraints expressed in the specification,
>      both syntactically and semantically, for the language in use to
>      construct these web units or authored components."

How would this differ from "4.1.1 Web units or authored components
conform to technical specifications without exception" (an SC that
would probably be rejected by the Working Group)?

Regards,

Christophe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
tel mobile: +32 473 97 70 25
fax: +32 16 32 85 39
http://www.docarch.be/ 
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 20:05:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT