- From: <kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:49:52 -0800 (PST)
- To: Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk ("Scarlett Julian (ED)")
- Cc: Ian.SHARPE@cambridge.sema.slb.com ('SHARPE Ian'), w3c-wai-ig@w3.org ("WAI (E-mail)")
Julian wrote: > I agree about font sizes, relative all the time. But, the <div> in question > contains just one image. AFAIK it seems ok to explicitly state absolute > sizes for images so why not the <div> that contains them? Makes perfect sense to me. See, sometimes it's necessary to apply common sense when using these _Guidelines_ which have been written as _guidelines_, not _absolute law_. Sorry, that sounds a bit like I'm scolding you, Julian. I'm not really scolding you, but rather other people who insist on the "the letter of the non-law" rather than the spirit of it. The goal is accessibility by as broad of an audience as possible, especially people with disabilities -- not a misguided adherence to markup dogma. I really can't see the use you propose here actively affecting the accessibility of the site content in any reasonable way. --Kynn (I'm sure someone, somewhere, will come up with a way in which it's a Major, Major Problem that somehow has never actually been encountered in practice and we've never heard of before.)
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 11:50:38 UTC