Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

If a company creates a tool that allows people to create web content they may be able to conform when the software is tested but that is a different date then for the person who builds content with it.

The suggestions are very much like 1.3.5:
In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of User Interface Components<http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#dfn-user-interface-components>, icons, and regions<http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#dfn-regions> can be programmatically determined.
(http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#identify-purpose)

in 1.3.4 we have tried to define a smaller, more testable set.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 13:16
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

AWK:
> If I use HTML in a “living standard” way today and include all of the appropriate meanings/purposes that are defined, but then HTML adds meanings, how will I be able to handle my conformance? I haven’t changed the site, but the list changes. We can’t leave that open-ended.

As per Michael’s email on the other thread: Conformance is at a particular date, so it’s the standard at the time.

This was one of the reasons that the W3C has tried to ‘version’ HTML though, so your conformance could also reference a specific version, e.g:
https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/sec-forms.html#autofill-field<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fhtml52%2Fsec-forms.html%23autofill-field&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C1a91d1adbbec4a5f136108d559e88c25%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513777735429494&sdata=KaptVuMMuXLmJ4IPdDuZTIRdkM9A6P0PPEjys0vUmiA%3D&reserved=0>

-Alastair