- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:47:43 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 19/04/2020 09:41, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: [...] > Failure examples are not requirements. They are examples of "if you do > this, it'll fail a particular SC (unless you've done something else to > mitigate/work around this, or you're using it in a situation that counts > as an exemption/exception to the SC)". And it's exactly because of the > potential ambiguity that it's not possible to outright outlaw certain > things. So let's not conflate failure examples with requirements. One of the reasons here is that it's also impossible to just define an exhaustive list of "these are ALL the ways in which you can fail this SC, so we're outlawing all of them as part of the hard normative requirement in the SC". There are a myriad of different ways in most cases to pass or fail an SC, and the web technologies available keep evolving (and authors find new and - sometimes - clever ways of achieving new things even with old technologies/combinations or technologies). It would be a sisyphean task to try and pin down every possible iteration (present and future) as part of hard requirements. Hence why failure and success examples are only that...examples. Not exhaustive lists. And it's why those are informative, rather than normative. P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Sunday, 19 April 2020 08:48:00 UTC