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,