That would work for me... Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF < gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > > > On May 1, 2016, at 6:46 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > > Dates on techniques don’t concern me as much as dates on “failures” would > do. The latter can be misinterpreted as implying that a given practice > wasn’t a failure before a certain date but became a failure thereafter, > whereas we’ve established in this discussion that if a documented practice > constitutes a failure to conform to WCAG 2.0, then it always was and always > will be a failure to conform to WCAG 2.0. > > > > Agree. > > would using “Last Reviewed Date” get around your concern? > > that would make it clear it was related to reviewing rather than dates > that things apply. >
Received on Monday, 2 May 2016 11:25:51 UTC