RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
>On 27/04/2016 16:19, White, Jason J wrote:
>> However, they're supposed to "rely upon" newer technologies over time,
>
>"supposed to" based on whose imposition? WCAG cannot mandate that any
>particular technology (old or new) is used, provided the original SC is satisfied
>(as you yourself note later in your email).

That's correct. I'm not saying "should" or "supposed to" in relation to WCAG conformance. I'm simply saying that in order to develop accessible content, this is what authors should be doing. They ought to choose their technologies appropriately, and I think it's within the scope of this working group to give non-normative guidance on technology selection.

>So...you can't talk about "supposed to" or "should", no?


Yes, I can. Not everything that one should be doing is required by the specification. For example, authors should write content that conforms to WCAG 2.0, but that's obviously a matter of organizational or in some cases governmental policies, or individual decision.


>P
>--
>Patrick H. Lauke
>
>www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke

>http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

>twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 15:36:46 UTC