- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:42:15 -0400
- To: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
- Cc: AG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <24443108-2188-3f9b-ba46-9fce528b8f0e@w3.org>
It's supposed to be put in as actual findable text by the script, but perhaps the script broke. I'll check. Your expectation is the intended behaviour at least. Michael On 15/08/2017 11:40 AM, Glenda Sims wrote: > Michael, > > On the current version of WCAG 2.1 (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/), > when I try to search (the page in Chrome) for this: > > [New] > > > ...I only get one hit. > > I think it would be really helpful if you actually typed the open > bracket and close bracket characters before each "New" in the next > publishing...so anyone can quickly find just the [New] stuff quickly. > > (or do I just need more coffee?) > g > > glenda sims | team a11y lead | deque.com <http://deque.com> > |512.963.3773 > > /web for everyone. web on everything./ - w3 goals > > 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 > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 15:42:16 UTC