- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:05:58 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 20/04/2017 15:03, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > On 20/04/2017 14:56, Alastair Campbell wrote: > [...] >> However, if a technique were to use the role=img attribute, and the >> user-scripts incorporate that, then it would be fine. > [...] >> Having the SC means we put a stake in the ground about the requirement, >> and can flesh out the understanding and techniques, to get out of the >> catch-22. > > But isn't the catch-22 still there, just codified? i.e. you'd have a > normative SC which would require authors to follow one particular > non-normative technique in order for their icon fonts to be officially > exempt from the SC? And to be clear, what I'm getting at is that I'd rather NOT see an exemption in the normative SC language at all, and a recommendation in the techniques for authors to switch to using inline SVG or similar, more robust techniques (as icon fonts are arguably a clever but non-semantic hack) P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2017 14:06:28 UTC