I think if we go by categories of points it’s do-able, broadly I’d suggest: > 1) No implementations. We have an indication that one is coming, but I’m not sure if it is English-only or not. Can we make its inclusion dependant on there being at least one user-agent implementation + however many site implementations we agreed on? If so, that’s the current answer. If not we urgently need to know about the possible user-side implementation(s). > 2) Making the list – how it was determined, whether we add more, remove some, reference externally, or what I think we decided that it would be preferable to reference an external spec, but actually that isn’t practical at this time. We reference external specs for ‘how to implement’, but the concepts need to be defined in WCAG. We can adjust the terms as part of this drafting process, the updates would be for future versions of WCAG which should be more often… > 3) Security concerns/conflicts. I think we bottomed that one out, I raised it in #590, and I think the other mentions just link to that issue. The answer is essentially: it is a browser / user-agent implementation issue. I.e. the mitigation of the security concerns needs to be done by the user-agent so that there is some interaction before filling things in, and it doesn't fill-in hidden fields. There doesn't seem to be any sign of browsers dropping autofill, so it shouldn't affect this SC. Cheers, -Alastair
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 12:44:48 UTC