On 09/02/2022 15:05, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > +1 to this as an Erratum for WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 > > -1 (-50?) if this is to be an Erratum for only WCAG 2.1 Oh yeah, I'd hope it cascades back to 2.0 as well, yes. 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_laukeReceived on Wednesday, 9 February 2022 19:49:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:43 UTC