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

I think there has been quite a bit of discussion around providing numbered
lists instead of bulletted lists (or definition lists)

I would suggest we start moving that direction, which gives the benefit of
allowing bullets to get referenced lie this.


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 Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Michael Cooper <> wrote:

> 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 very generic and also somewhat out of date, so this edit increased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.
> Michael
> 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 <> 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:
>> -(no-exception)
>> They both linked the term "CSS pixels" to the CSS 2 specification:
>> That link doesn't really provide value, and we already have a term for
>> 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.
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 01:16:01 UTC