Léonie Watson wrote: >> This is one of my concerns going forward as well. A few times in our >> 2.1 work we've had situations where editing or >> expanding/narrowing/clarifying the scope of existing 2.0 content >> (SCs, normative text) would have been ideal...but instead we were >> only allowed to add, never subtract/touch existing material. > > I think this was perhaps the most incomprehensible decision made > during 2.1. It should be possible to conform to the present version, > the previous version, or even the original version if you really want > to, but the notion that in order to conform to 2.1 you have to conform > to 2.0, puts a serious obstacle in the way of progress IMO. The mantra is that WCAG 2.0 is a stable standard and just does not change, now and forever Amen. However, I do agree that just changing existing SC _would_ have been preferable (in some cases) but between the jigs and reels, this was not possible for 2.1. -- Joshue O Connor Director | InterAccess.ieReceived on Friday, 26 January 2018 17:57:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:22 UTC