- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 14:37:28 -0400
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: "wuyinghua@ritt.cn" <wuyinghua@ritt.cn>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Is there really a need for a date for techniques / failures? The date of publication of the Techniques doc is the date it applies from. If this is not clear, a single sentence may be added that says so. Web content certified as compliant or pages that made a conformance claim, say , in the previous year, may surely refer to the techniques doc in effect at that time. If Web content changes and needs to be re-certified, it will be with reference to the latest techniques doc. Consider technique H80 was in the books till it was deleted in 2014. A link's context could be determined with reference to the previous heading tag in order to pass SC 2.4.4. And pages did claim conformance based on H80. But not any more. i.e. if that page is being re-audited today because of change in some content. Another problem with technique specific date: it is possible that only some part of description is changed or an example is changed or a test is modified. Will a date be noted against every change? Will this be practical from point of view of administering / tracking changes or using the documentation? I think not. Best wishes, Sailesh Panchang
Received on Monday, 9 May 2016 18:43:04 UTC