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: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:45:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vkd-Ex1PWQ16S1te5-R9P+V8_kbsQ1Uvpojx9JNjHjA7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
+1

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>

On 12 October 2016 at 16:51, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> 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 because the 2.0 version is not invalid or outdated, it just (potentially)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 16:47:09 UTC

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