W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Relative v absolute units (was Bobby inaccuracy?)

From: <kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200201171651.IAA15732@garth.idyllmtn.com>
To: Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk ("Scarlett Julian (ED)")
Cc: Ian.SHARPE@cambridge.sema.slb.com ('SHARPE Ian'), w3c-wai-ig@w3.org ("WAI (E-mail)")
Julian wrote:
> I agree about font sizes, relative all the time. But, the <div> in question
> contains just one image. AFAIK it seems ok to explicitly state absolute
> sizes for images so why not the <div> that contains them?

Makes perfect sense to me.

See, sometimes it's necessary to apply common sense when using these
_Guidelines_ which have been written as _guidelines_, not _absolute
law_.

Sorry, that sounds a bit like I'm scolding you, Julian.  I'm not really
scolding you, but rather other people who insist on the "the letter of
the non-law" rather than the spirit of it.  The goal is accessibility
by as broad of an audience as possible, especially people with disabilities
-- not a misguided adherence to markup dogma.  I really can't see the
use you propose here actively affecting the accessibility of the site
content in any reasonable way.

--Kynn

(I'm sure someone, somewhere, will come up with a way in which it's a
Major, Major Problem that somehow has never actually been encountered in
practice and we've never heard of before.)
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 11:50:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT