W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Re[2]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:51:36 +0000
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D6C36704-9E7A-4056-9161-231DBD9A2AE3@nomensa.com>
Hi Katie,

It feels a little odd arguing about this as I’m fairly ambivalent about the timeline after 2.1, but as I read through the feedback from various people, there was a logical solution to me.

It was from Makoto, who said:
“If there will be any conflicting SC in WCAG 2.1, it could cause a problem. I don't want a situation that a website conforming to WCAG 2.1 doesn't conform to WCAG 2.0.

So it'll be okay if it'll looks like:
- Baseline: WCAG 2.0
- Advanced Level: WCAG 2.1, 2.2...”

The backwards compatibility in the 2.x line is what enables this approach, because the 2.0 version is not invalid or outdated, it just (potentially) isn’t as full as the latest version. That does cause us headaches (I would prefer to re-do some of them), but it does enable the approach.

We can’t move at the pace of the slowest Government, and even someone involved in Section 508 (the slowest update to date?) has said the approach should not be problematic.

The main thing I’m struggling to understand why this is an issue for this charter, are you objecting to a 2.1 in 2018?

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>


I would prefer that - either these people join a call where we can all ask questions, or, we draft a specific introduction with questions that is approved by this WG.
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 15:52:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:06 UTC