W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Proposed requirements for checkpoint 6.4 (Response Required)

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:12:46 +0100
Message-ID: <007f01c238df$be1b0720$403c70c2@7020CT>
To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>

"Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> Works  for me.
>> Does this have to be the rendered form, the author-specified form, or
>> are either OK? (For example, an author may have specified two different
>> fonts,
>> and the User Agent may render the first one, or the second if it lacks
>> the first, or neither, if it doesn't have them. Alternatively they may
>> have been overridden by an author style sheet, or a high-contrast
>> setting might be
>> causing rendering in black and white when the author has specified
>> several colours).
> The goal of this checkpoint is to make available what's *actually*
> rendered.

I agree with it, but I'm concerned it may be expensive to implement in
current scenarios, and will also rely on the end renderer providing the
information - so if I wanted to make a UA that re-used some components
which doesn't provide exact pixel locations, I have no way to achieve it
(but can get close, it will be what I tell the renderer to do.) - is there
any implementation experience?

Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2002 18:13:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:32 UTC