- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:51:58 -0400
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Technology neutral is an important point to bear in mind for sure. And it is alright to focus on 4.1.1 for this thread but making a decision with regard to treatment of 'false positives' based on one SC alone may lead to inconsistencies on how and why FPs are being addressed in an extension. Sailesh On 7/18/16, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > > > From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 9:36 AM > > > The term visible in the DOM tree is problematic. Do you mean visible with > the current CSS or do you mean exists in the DOM tree? I would prefer a > term that was more clear that we were talking about being present in the DOM > tree. > [Jason] The entire proposal is very technology-specific in any case. It > wouldn’t address PDF documents, for instance, which have tags but no DOM > tree, or contexts in which the author is writing in XML. > One of the principal objectives of WCAG 2.0 was to avoid HTML-specific > technical assumptions in the guidelines and success criteria. > > ________________________________ > > 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 Monday, 18 July 2016 13:52:29 UTC