Re: Raw minutes from 11 July UAWG teleconference

Al Gilman wrote:
> [Sorry for the repeat, David.  This one is even better]
> 
> At 05:06 AM 2002-07-12, David Poehlman wrote:
> 
>>al, do you have propposed wording?
> 
> 
> <asIs
> cite="">
> 
>     1. Allow global configuration of the scale of visually
>        rendered text. Preserve text size differences when the user
>        changes the scale.
> 
> </asIs>
> 
> <option1>
> 
>     1. Allow one master configuration setting the general sizing of visually
>        rendered text.  Preserve larger/smaller relationships 
>        between text fragments of different sizes as their respective 
>        sizes change in response to this setting.
> 
> </option1>
> <option2>
> 
>     1. Allow configuration of the general sizing of visually
>        rendered text.  Preserve text-size distinctions in 
>        the text as the general sizing increases and decreases.
> 
> </option2>

> 
> Note that either optional language offered above does not _disallow_ meeting
> this by proportional scaling, it just does not *require* proportional scaling.

I don't mind option two, in particular the second sentence (with a 
clarification along the lines of proportional scaling is not 
required, and the recommended approach is the one along the lines Al
described.

I have trouble with "general sizing". I prefer "scale", unless
that necessarily connotes proportional scaling. Would it
be sufficient to say the following:

<proposed>

  1. Allow global configuration of the scale of visually rendered
     text. Preserve distinctions among the size of rendered text as
     the user increases or decreases the scale.

  Normative exclusion: The user agent is not required to satisfy this
  requirement through proportional scaling. What must hold is that
  if text A is smaller than text B at one value of this configuration
  setting, that text A will still be smaller than text B at another
  value of this configuration setting.

  In the techs document:

     The ratios of the sizes should be compressed at large
     text sizes, as the same number of different sizes must
     be packed into a smaller dynamic range.
</proposed>

If scale doesn't work, I could live with "general size" rather
than "sizing". I thought about "overall size" but people may think
of pants...

  _ Ian

> The second option is more compact, but is more likely to be misunderstood.
> What we want to be true is that if text A is smaller than text B at one value
> of this configuration setting, that text A will still be smaller than text B
> at another value of this configuration setting.  I think I favor the shorter
> one, but I could live with any of the above.
> 
> The as-is version does have the difficulty that some will read it literally
> as the numeric difference in the size number should be preserved, and it is
> not our intent to require that, specifically, either.  It is also confusing
> as to the sense of 'global' configuration.  It is meant to imply global across
> the whole corpus of pages processed through the User Agent at that setting, 
> as well as an adjustment that applies globally to all the sizes applied to
> distinct classes of text content.

Please refer to the glossary for the answer to your question. You 
may respond "I shouldn't have to refer to the glossary". But there 
are enough questions about the scope of the configuration to have 
earned a term, and "global" seems no worse than "master" to me: you 
still have to look at the glossary for details.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 10:13:48 UTC