Re: Potentially normative change to target size SC, and other edits

I've fixed this.

It will be easier in the future to file things like this as github 
issues, so they can be assigned and tracked.

Michael


On 15/08/2017 11:40 AM, Glenda Sims wrote:
> Michael,
>
> On the current version of WCAG 2.1 (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/),
> when I try to search (the page in Chrome) for this:
>
>     [New]
>
>
> ...I only get one hit.
>
> I think it would be really helpful if you actually typed the open 
> bracket and close bracket characters before each "New" in the next 
> publishing...so anyone can quickly find just the [New] stuff quickly.
>
> (or do I just need more coffee?)
> g
>
> glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   | deque.com <http://deque.com>   
>  |512.963.3773
>
> /web for everyone. web on everything./ -  w3 goals
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org 
> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     I'm preparing WCAG 2.1 for the next formal publication, scheduled
>     for next tomorrow. I routinely do cleanup at this stage to ensure
>     consistency.
>
>     In this pass, I came across one issue in the two new Target Size
>     SC recently accepted:
>
>     https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#target-size
>     <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#target-size>
>     https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#target-size-(no-exception)
>     <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#target-size-%28no-exception%29>
>
>     They both linked the term "CSS pixels" to the CSS 2 specification:
>
>     https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/
>
>     That link doesn't really provide value, and we already have a term
>     for CSS pixel:
>
>     https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#dfn-css-pixel
>     <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#dfn-css-pixel>
>
>     So I changed the link to point to the term in the WCAG 2.1 spec,
>     instead of CSS 2.
>
>     This is technically a normative change; if anybody objects to it,
>     let me know.
>
>     Other changes I have made both to recently add SC, and ones
>     currently under CfC, which I consider editorial but let me know if
>     you think otherwise:
>
>       * Lists in SC changed to definition lists when they have headers;
>       * Terms start with a single clause, and any further exposition
>         in subsequent paragraphs;
>       * Consistent capitalization;
>       * Marked everything as "new";
>       * Removed stray elements like redundant conformance level markers;
>       * Changed some paragraphs to editorial notes when it seemed that
>         was the intent;
>       * Provide links to Understanding pages (most of them populated
>         just with a template);
>       * Other invisible edits like making the file we edit match the
>         new name of the SC.
>
>     Michael
>
>