- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:27:48 +0100
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On 27/04/2016 16:19, White, Jason J wrote: > However, they're supposed to "rely upon" newer technologies over > time, "supposed to" based on whose imposition? WCAG cannot mandate that any particular technology (old or new) is used, provided the original SC is satisfied (as you yourself note later in your email). > and we can still say (non-normatively), for example, that > authors should be using ARIA to meet certain success criteria > nowadays, and therefore should be relying on ARIA in their > conformance. again, "should" in the spec sense is not possible, as long as the SC is satisfied. > One of the implications of developing long-lasting guidelines that > allow authors to choose their technologies is that, as long as they > conform, it's up to them which technologies they use in order to do > it. So...you can't talk about "supposed to" or "should", no? P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 15:28:01 UTC