Re: Editorial changes to SC

Sure, I think the meaning is preserved/improved with that.

As I said, I’m reporting on behalf of MichaelG. I have an unfortunate ability to read what was intended, rather than what was written, so really have to focus on being pedantic ;-)

Cheers,

-Alastair



From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Friday, 8 September 2017 at 15:15
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Editorial changes to SC


Ok, I could live with re-introducing the comma after "functionality", but think it's important to keep the comma I introduced before "except for..." because that should clearly be a separate clause.

Would this go back to "editorial" territory if I do that?

Michael

On 08/09/2017 4:04 AM, Alastair Campbell wrote:
Hi Michael,

Generally that looks good, but I think the very last change in the list (zoom-content, line 12) changes the meaning, at least according to a comment previously.

“Content can be zoomed to an equivalent width of 320 CSS pixels without loss of content or functionality, and without requiring scrolling on more than one axis except for…”

The comment stretched my grammar knowledge, but apparently if there is no comma after ‘functionality’ it means you could have a loss of content with scrolling, but not functionality.

The content & functionality are supposed to be grouped, with the no-scrolling applying to both.

I’m happy to be corrected on that, but I think Michael Gower commented about it previously.

Cheers,

-Alastair