- From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:22:41 +0100
- To: Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>
- Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> [Jason] I would interpret it as a user agent requirement masquerading as a content requirement. It ought to be clarified to state the circumstances under which the content author needs to provide the mechanism, or dropped entirely. > I don’t see where you get that — it is an AUTHOR requirement that is future proofed to avoid the author having to solve the problem if browsers or AT can provide it without author action in the future Gregg C Vanderheiden greggvan@umd.edu > On Feb 3, 2017, at 3:13 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] >> >> Exactly, which is my point since (going back to the thread starter and the actual >> proposed SC https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/57) here we seemed to be >> saying that the mechanism is available, EXCEPT where the platform/UA itself >> does not provide it, which seemed rather paradoxical. > [Jason] I would interpret it as a user agent requirement masquerading as a content requirement. It ought to be clarified to state the circumstances under which the content author needs to provide the mechanism, or dropped entirely. > > > ________________________________ > > 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. > > ________________________________
Received on Friday, 3 February 2017 14:23:22 UTC