Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

Patrick wrote:
> Sure, I just want to make sure the language is crystal clear - because 
> if the SC mandates that something be possible…

I’d frame it as the SC mandates that the “content allows” something to happen.

Which should make it clear that: 
> the onus then doesn't fall on the author to provide customisation dialogs and widgets (unless they want to).
We have the understanding doc to make that more clear, and to outline testing, but the question for the SC text is whether that makes sense, fits the criteria, and covers what we want it to:
“Changing the font-family used on a web page does not cause loss of content or functionality.”

If that approach is deemed worthwhile, we can apply it to several other SCs.



Received on Friday, 20 January 2017 13:57:34 UTC