Re: SC 2.2.1 Extend (NOT Adjust!!) (Re: SC 2.2.1 Extend "at least ten times")

+1 to Patrick - if it's not a normative change but just an editorial
adjustment for more clarity, then by all means let's do it.

(I do agree with David and Katie as to intent, but see from Makoto's
question the ongoing lack of clarity)

JF

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:37 PM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 06/02/2020 18:04, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote:
> > +1 to David's recall of the rationale at the time, that was it, I was
> > also there. Could wording be improved? Sure always.
>
> Well then, let's. I'll file a PR. As said, this to me would sound like
> an editorial/non-substantial/errata change.
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com