Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2

>>The FPWD does not need to include all the proposed SC. It only needs to
include those SC that have been reviewed and categorised by the time the
FPWD is expected. Other SC can be added incrementally to subsequent WD
as/when.


​That makes sense to 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 Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:

> On 03/01/2017 18:06, David MacDonald wrote:
>
>> but I'm concerned that the world is watching for WCAG next, and has been
>> waiting over 8 years. Is this the first thing we want to release to
>> these stakeholders in 8 years?
>>
>
> No.
>
>
>> I think we may want to postpone our release date for the FPWD, until we
>> can parse these, figure out how we are going to organize them and make
>> some preliminary vetting.
>>
>
> The FPWD does not need to include all the proposed SC. It only needs to
> include those SC that have been reviewed and categorised by the time the
> FPWD is expected. Other SC can be added incrementally to subsequent WD
> as/when.
>
> Please don't consider delaying the timeline. Eight years is far too long
> as it is - let's not make it worse.
>
> Léonie.
>
>
> --
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>
>