Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

So in layman's terms I think what the SC is saying is "Don't get in the way
of user style sheets by sticking "!important" on classes of your style

And a test for that would be a global search through all the style sheets
looking for the word !important and ensuring it does not encroach upon
changing fonts.

Is that right?

David MacDonald

*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902


GitHub <> <>

*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <>

> On 20/01/2017 12:18, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> Well, we’re covering web-content rather than native apps
> Interesting side note: during discussions in MATF, there has always been
> some circling around "we want to also target native (mobile) apps", with
> the point that native apps are still "content". While I share your view
> that this is about the content only, already with things like Flash we had
> a certain blurring of the lines (as yes, Flash is content, but essentially
> its own isolated user agent in many ways).
> Just because something isn’t supported on mobile doesn’t mean we
>> shouldn’t improve things on desktop, assuming that it doesn’t make
>> the mobile experience worse for everyone else. I think that applies
>> to Resize content and several other SCs as well.
> Sure, I just want to make sure the language is crystal clear - because if
> the SC mandates that something be possible, and the platform doesn't
> natively provide it (no browser, no OS feature, etc) then it needs to be
> clear that the onus then doesn't fall on the author to provide
> customisation dialogs and widgets (unless they want to).
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
> |
> |
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Friday, 20 January 2017 14:22:17 UTC