Re: Backwards compatibility

Makoto wrote:
> it'll be okay if we can say conforming to WCAG 2.1 means conforming to WCAG 2.0 plus additional, enhanced or extended requirements. If we'll be able to make the statement you suggested, it'll address my concern. Thanks!
Thank you, good to know. 

Of course, we should make every effort to ensure it actually *is* backwards compatible as well as saying it is! But with that kind of statement, anyone finding a niche case that we missed should know to fall back to 2.0.



Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 17:50:25 UTC