Re: Proposed requirements for checkpoint 6.4 (Response Required)

"Jim Ley" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.agents
Message-ID <007f01c238df$be1b0720$403c70c2@7020CT>

"Ian B. Jacobs" <[email protected]>
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> Works  for me.
>>
>> Does this have to be the rendered form, the author-specified form, or
>> are either OK? (For example, an author may have specified two different
>> fonts,
>> and the User Agent may render the first one, or the second if it lacks
>> the first, or neither, if it doesn't have them. Alternatively they may
>> have been overridden by an author style sheet, or a high-contrast
>> setting might be
>> causing rendering in black and white when the author has specified
>> several colours).
>
> The goal of this checkpoint is to make available what's *actually*
> rendered.

I agree with it, but I'm concerned it may be expensive to implement in
current scenarios, and will also rely on the end renderer providing the
information - so if I wanted to make a UA that re-used some components
which doesn't provide exact pixel locations, I have no way to achieve it
(but can get close, it will be what I tell the renderer to do.) - is there
any implementation experience?

Jim,
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.