- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 21:15:36 -0400
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, AG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZ-wB9GmhDb9+RUrb0u6kpyb6n_79HMtTO3kndR71v4iA@mail.gmail.com>
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. 2.4.6.3 Principle>Guidline>SC>Bullet. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> 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 very generic and also somewhat out of date, so this edit increased 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 <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 >> -(no-exception) >> >> 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 >> >> 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 > > Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion > > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 01:16:01 UTC