- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:10:58 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- cc: Michael Cooper <mcooper@cast.org>, WAI ER IG List <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
640x480 is not the lowest resolution monitor. Any more than IE is the browser everyone uses. If the font size changes and the table size doesn't then the layout may/will change anyway. The navigation images issue is related to the use of images of text. Is there a problem that it causes to have 80% of my 320x240 screen taken up by a navbar? (I think so...) Chaals On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote: Could there be some cases where an absolute size in tables and framesets may be appropriate? An absolute size is OK if: If the table contains a form - the author may not want the form layout to be changed by a table changing size. If the table column or frame contains images (navigation buttons for example) that are a set size - the other table columns or frames may change size but the column containing the images should stay put. If the entire table or frameset size is less than 640 X 480 pixels - this will fit on the lowest resolution monitor. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Cooper" <mcooper@cast.org> To: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 10:38 AM Subject: RE: Technique 3.4.1 Check document for relative units of measure > 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 > > -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia September - November 2000: W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 12:12:59 UTC