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

Re: Editorial changes to SC

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:26:25 +0000
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
CC: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, AG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1FA970CA-2CCD-4AD4-912B-FF1DEEA7C144@nomensa.com>
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 ;-)



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?


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.



Received on Friday, 8 September 2017 14:26:51 UTC

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