W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2017

Re: Potentially normative change to target size SC, and other edits

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:21:28 -0400
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: AG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0f0ce986-fb5b-4f47-7c5c-a7761b216669@w3.org>
Yes. JF's reasoning is the reason I made this change. We should not 
conflict with other W3C specs, and using a glossary entry makes a 
"single point of failure" to help ensure this. Including a reference in 
the term to the other W3C spec that authoritatively defines the term 
helps avoid forks on our part. If we later need to update or correct the 
reference, we only need to do it once in the glossary, rather than 
search for multiple places elsewhere in the document and potentially 
miss some, or argue about the wording individually in the context of 
separate SC. Also, the definition of CSS pixel in the glossary 
references the exact CSS spec that defines it, while the link I replaced 
just pointed to the CSS2 cover page, which is very generic and also 
somewhat out of date, so this edit increased precision.


On 14/08/2017 5:25 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> > So I changed the link to point to the term in the WCAG 2.1 spec, 
> instead of CSS 2.
> ​> ​
> This is technically a normative change; if anybody objects to it, let 
> me know.
> ​I understand both the justification and the concern​
> ​.
> I personally am not opposed
> ​ to replicating the definition in WCAG 2.1​
> (given that CSS 2 is a normative spec
> ​, and not likely to change​
> ), and
> ​ so equally​
> I am not opposed to pointing to th
> ​at
>  same definition *inside* of WCAG 2.1, but ideally I'd also ensure 
> that the WCAG 2.1 definition in-turn references the definitive CSS 2 
> definition (linked), so that ultimately we have but *ONE* normative W3C
>  definition (i.e.some provisional language stating the definitive 
> definition is at CSS 2).
> (In other words, I would hate to see a conflicting definition show-up 
> down the road due to our failure to closely follow activities in a 
> different Working Group)​
> JF
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org 
> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:
>     I'm preparing WCAG 2.1 for the next formal publication, scheduled
>     for next tomorrow. I routinely do cleanup at this stage to ensure
>     consistency.
>     In this pass, I came across one issue in the two new Target Size
>     SC recently accepted:
>     https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#target-size
>     <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#target-size>
>     https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#target-size-(no-exception)
>     <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#target-size-%28no-exception%29>
>     They both linked the term "CSS pixels" to the CSS 2 specification:
>     https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/
>     That link doesn't really provide value, and we already have a term
>     for CSS pixel:
>     https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#dfn-css-pixel
>     <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#dfn-css-pixel>
>     So I changed the link to point to the term in the WCAG 2.1 spec,
>     instead of CSS 2.
>     This is technically a normative change; if anybody objects to it,
>     let me know.
>     Other changes I have made both to recently add SC, and ones
>     currently under CfC, which I consider editorial but let me know if
>     you think otherwise:
>       * Lists in SC changed to definition lists when they have headers;
>       * Terms start with a single clause, and any further exposition
>         in subsequent paragraphs;
>       * Consistent capitalization;
>       * Marked everything as "new";
>       * Removed stray elements like redundant conformance level markers;
>       * Changed some paragraphs to editorial notes when it seemed that
>         was the intent;
>       * Provide links to Understanding pages (most of them populated
>         just with a template);
>       * Other invisible edits like making the file we edit match the
>         new name of the SC.
>     Michael
> -- 
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Monday, 14 August 2017 22:21:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:16 UTC