------ Original Message ------ From: "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com> To: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> > > > This isn’t worth spending a lot of time on now, we need to get all >the new SCs in a pot first and boil them down to the essentials, then >we can hash this out. +10 J > > >+1 > >JF > >On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Alastair Campbell ><acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: >>Katie wrote: >> >> > “Even though C restates with a higher requirement, it is still OK, I >>think, as long as each is testable. Because we can't remove or change >>1.4.4 so an entity would fail in 2.1 for that SC if they passes it in >>2.0.” >> >> >> >>I think if we could show that anything passing this 2.1 SC would also >>pass the 2.0 SC, I’d like to be able to replace the original. Apparent >>duplication would make the document harder to understand. >> >> >> >>However, we’re a little way off that decision point, we need to go >>through the process of agreeing the new ones first… >> >> >> >>Cheers, >> >> >> >>-Alastair >> >> >> >> >> > > > >-- >John Foliot >Principal Accessibility Strategist >Deque Systems Inc. >john.foliot@deque.com > >Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2016 14:37:49 UTC