W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2018

Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:26:02 +0000
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3341A44B-4FF8-4B69-9FBC-141E4D588569@adobe.com>
If a company creates a tool that allows people to create web content they may be able to conform when the software is tested but that is a different date then for the person who builds content with it.

The suggestions are very much like 1.3.5:
In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of User Interface Components<http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#dfn-user-interface-components>, icons, and regions<http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#dfn-regions> can be programmatically determined.

in 1.3.4 we have tried to define a smaller, more testable set.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 13:16
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

> If I use HTML in a “living standard” way today and include all of the appropriate meanings/purposes that are defined, but then HTML adds meanings, how will I be able to handle my conformance? I haven’t changed the site, but the list changes. We can’t leave that open-ended.

As per Michael’s email on the other thread: Conformance is at a particular date, so it’s the standard at the time.

This was one of the reasons that the W3C has tried to ‘version’ HTML though, so your conformance could also reference a specific version, e.g:

Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 18:26:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:21 UTC