Re: Editorial changes to SC

On 08/09/2017 18:09, Michael Cooper wrote:

> It's a separate question as to whether we should change the WCAG 2.0 SC 
> that are included in WCAG 2.1. For now I didn't touch those, under the 
> rationale that we're keeping them exactly as they appear in WCAG 2.0 for 
> now, to minimize confusion. However, we could decide that we want to 
> apply at least editorial changes to make all of WCAG 2.1 
> self-consistent; we will also soon explore whether we want to merge some 
> WCAG 2.1 SC with existing 2.0 SC, in which case we would be changing 
> them anyways. In either of those cases, yes I would like to apply the 
> editorial changes to the 2.0 SC, but we won't have the decisions to 
> support doing that before the upcoming WD publication.

+1 for consistency, as I already suggested in

Whether we go for straight bullets of definition particular 
preference either way - though unless I'm mistaken, there's no major 
advantage with definition lists in how they're announced by current AT, 
so the semantic benefit is theoretical at the moment (this may well have 
changed, but from memory definition lists are just announced as lists, 
with no particular "this is the term, and this is the definition for 
this term" kind of announcement).

Patrick H. Lauke | |
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Saturday, 9 September 2017 09:01:01 UTC