Please Review: Final draft wording to allow Adapting Text into the Editors Draft

Hi John, Greg, Lisa, and Everyone,

After reading the "Adapting Text Units: Spaces, paragraphs, and ems"
thread [1] and Stephen's latest rationale [2], can anyone not live
with the following text:

<Start SC Text>

If the technologies being used allow the user agent to adapt style
properties of text, then no loss of essential content or functionality
occurs by adapting all of the following:

1. line height (line spacing) to at least 1.5 times the font size.
2. spacing underneath paragraphs to at least 2 times the font size.
3. letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 times the font size.
4. word spacing to at least 0.16 times the font size.

Note: Examples of text that are typically not affected by style
properties are open captions and images of text, which are not
expected to adapt.

Editor's note: The Working Group seeks to include overriding text
color, background color, and font-family as part of this SC, but is
not yet able to identify a way to do so that is sufficiently testable.

<End SC Text>

Can anyone not live with that?

Thank you all very much.

Kindest Regards,


On 7/13/17, Repsher, Stephen J <> wrote:
> Hi John,
> That’s actually incorrect with regard to letter and word spacing.  It’s a
> factor on font size (height in your proposal) just like the rest.  Given
> that “font height” is not language used in any spec or software I’m aware
> of, I think we should stick to “font size”, which is universally
> understood.
> I still have concerns about testability and the need for testing it at all,
> but we can see what the public says.  One change that I do think we need to
> make is to remove the “(2 lines)” from the 2nd bullet.  It makes it seem
> like a “line” is equal to the font size, which is not true.  Simplify to:
> 2. spacing underneath paragraphs to at least 2 times the font size
> Steve

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Friday, 14 July 2017 12:51:26 UTC