- From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:39:39 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:35 PM > To: public-w3process@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposal for Publishing REC Errata > > On 10/15/2014 08:26 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote: > > > > [SZ] As pointed out below, the first proposal is not very nice for accessible > access (and is hard to read visually) and the second proposal makes it > difficult to see the original text. Why not use a mark-up that has both the > original REC text and the proposed replacement text; for example, <span > class="errata"><span class="original">The REC text fragment</span><span > class="replacement">The replacement text fixing the error.</span></span>. > Then styling for normal access would make the "replacement" class be > "display:none" and would put a yellow background (as a warning) on the > "original" text. Then using either ":hover" or an explicit toggle on the "errata" > <span>, the "replacement" text could be displayed to anyone that wanted to > see it. This convention would, I believe, give better accessible access because > instead of small fragments of insertions and deletions, the entire section that > needed to be re-written would be present in two forms, either of which > could be present! > ed to the > > viewer. > > I believe, Steve, that this is exactly what <ins> and <del> are for. :-) [SZ] OK, I see your point. Mine was that if they are used on a whole text basis rather than a smallest change basis, the result is much more readable. > > ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2014 00:40:08 UTC