- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:15:06 -0700
- To: <joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie>, <mjs@apple.com>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'Wai-Ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "'HTMLWG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'WebAIM Discussion List'" <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>, "'Gawds_Discuss'" <gawds_discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Joshue O Connor wrote: > > Yes, all the more reason to ensure that the API is suitable /before/ it > leaves the stable so we are not facing a situation where we need to > retrofit the API for accessibility. > > Josh > In light of the recent change from 'should' to 'must' (RFC 2119), if retrofitting the API is out of the question, then what exactly is the plan to ensure conformance? The HTML5 WG and WHAT WG have gone to great pains to ensure that pages will conform, so please all, how or what is going to be done to address this issue? The spec says 'must', thus you must. If you do not, then what happens? Logic can only lead to one conclusion, the page is non-conformant. What is the price for non-conformance? (Henri, your thoughts?) JF
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 06:16:04 UTC