From: David MacDonald [mailto:david@can-adapt.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 12:50 PM >I t doesn’t eliminate the use of the word “essential”, which is not here used in accordance with its WCAG definition. T hat word is in both proposals so I think we should consider that separately... perhaps you can file an issue on github. [Jason] It’s already captured in another issue. I would rather avoid having multiple CfCs, however, by addressing as many of the issues at once as we can. > It doesn’t address Andrew’s scenario in which the spacing parameters supplied by the author already meet or exceed those requested in the success criterion. I agree with Andrew that the content should pass the SC in such a case. Why wouldn't it pass? The 4 things are states [Jason] Yes, but no “change” is required to achieve the states. I suppose one could think of it as the special case of a null transformation, but that’s stretching readability somewhat. ________________________________ 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 Monday, 13 November 2017 17:54:41 UTC