- From: Michael Cooper <mcooper@cast.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:38:02 -0400
- To: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
For Bobby, I went through the HTML spec and we've only implemented the requirement to have relative size units for those elements that support them. When we originally had it for any size attribute, every table border, cellspacing, cellpadding, etc. attribute got called out, even width and height for images!. But in HTML, there are no relative sizes you can define for those attributes. In CSS, there are (and by the way, you can use a fractional em, like "border: .1em"), so if we were evaluating CSS I would say border, padding, margin etc. should be covered. The only elements and attributes we check for absolute size, then, are: COL - width, charoff COLGROUP - width, charoff HR - width FRAMESET - rows, cols IFRAME - width, height TABLE - width TBODY - charoff TH - width, height, charoff TFOOT - charoff THEAD - charoff TD - width, height, charoff TR - height, charoff Michael -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Chris Ridpath Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:07 PM To: WAI ER IG List Subject: Technique 3.4.1 Check document for relative units of measure Could the 'border' attribute be an exception to this rule? It's a common practice to use 1 or 2 for a table/image/frame border to indicate that there should be some sort of thin line surrounding the object. If we do require a relative measure for a border, what would it be? (I think that an 'em' or 'ex' would be too large to replace a 1 pixel border.) Chris
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2000 10:39:00 UTC