- From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:18:03 +0000
- To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "redux@splintered.co.uk" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Detlev Fischer [mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de] > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:04 PM > Sure, it would be. I would just prefer to see that in the Understanding doc and > not overload the SC text too much. But if others think it has to be done, so be it.. [Jason] If an exception or qualification to a requirement isn't in the text of the SC, then it doesn't exist for normative purposes. The Understanding document can't alter the normative implications of the text of WCAG, so you can't put exceptions in there or qualify the meaning of a requirement in a way that isn't provided for in the SC text. ________________________________ 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 Wednesday, 18 October 2017 16:18:28 UTC