RE: CFC: Issue 72: Proposed change in definition to "set of web pages"

Yes Jason.  We feel the example is implicitly covered by the current definition and this a method of making it more explicit. 
HTH 
Josh 

InterAccess - Accessible UX
-------- Original message --------From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org> Date: 30/11/2016  13:38  (GMT+00:00) To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: RE: CFC: Issue 72: Proposed change in definition to "set of web    pages" 


 
 


From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]


Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:28 AM




See Andrew’s previous email about ‘normative’, but I would say it is a normative difference between 2.0 and 2.1, it isn’t changing 2.0.
[Jason] Are you saying that the Web-based publication mentioned in the proposed example wouldn’t be a set of Web pages under WCAG 2.0? I do have problems
 with using an example to change the scope of a definition; the only way to do that is to change the text of the definition itself.
 
When I read the proposal, however, it seemed that the example was merely illustrating what is already covered by the definition and so it would not constitute
 a change to the meaning of “set of Web pages” at all. I also note that a publication contained in an archive would not be covered; as stated in my earlier post, that’s still a problem, and if anyone thinks that this archive issue is resolved by the current
 proposal then there is a need for further work and clarification before endorsing the change recommended in this CFC.
 





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.