Re: Can Silver have normative technology specific requirements?

Thu, 22 Nov 2018 15:13:23 -0500, David MacDonald wrote:

    We could have say, 5 technology specific methods and then a sixth
    method could look like a technology agnostic WCAG 2 SC to cover any outlier
    situations. Most people will ignore the last cryptic technology agnostic
    method ard follow the easy to understand technology specific methods.

This is a interesting idea that could potentially solve some of the edge 
cases that have come up in discussion.

David, would you add this idea to your prototype example? Or write a new 
one if it doesn't apply.  That will give us a concrete example to 
discuss and test.

On 11/23/2018 8:47 AM, Alastair Campbell wrote:

> I think it would be best to define the optimal structure for practical 
> use, then work out what should be normative secondly.

+1

That's why it is so important for people to stress test the architecture 
prototype and the plain language prototype.  That's what will help 
ensure that we have the optimal structure.  Please don't forget to test  
the proposals that did not make it into 2.1.  We aren't writing content 
yet, so don't be concerned about the writing -- just sketch it out.  
Instructions and links are in this email:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2018Nov/0040.html

If you are looking for inspiration, this is a copy of spreadsheet that 
David did of SC Not accepted for 2.1: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=264773938