Re: Please review proposals for last call issues 678 and 679, discussion on 680 and 695

Hi Andi, All,

At 01:25 27/07/2006, Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
>I did manage to do two more: 678 [1] and 679 [2].

679: The proposed change to F46 is technically correct, but is the use of
scope, id, and headers attributes in layout tables a *common* failure?

>I also took a look at 680 [3] and 695 [4]. I would like to discuss these on
>Monday if we have time before attempting to make proposals on them.
>(...)
>
>In 695, Chris recommends that we should not recommend the use of the Q
>element because IE does not support it. What should we do about this one?

Either
  * remove Q for now and add it again in a future version of the Techniques
    doc when support has significantly improved;
or
  * change example 4 (in H49) with an interim solution:
    - add quotation marks manually around the Q element and
    - add the following CSS to disable the display of quotation marks that
      do support Q:  q:before { content: ""; } q:after {  content: ""; }
      /* two separate rules for support in Opera 6 */
   I think few people will find the second option attractive.

Regards,

Christophe


>[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/678
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/679
>[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/680
>[4] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/695
>
>Andi

-- 
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
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm