W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Technique H25 / real life

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:36:10 +0000
Message-ID: <52715FAA.6020308@splintered.co.uk>
To: "Foliot, John" <john.foliot@chase.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On 30/10/2013 19:25, Foliot, John wrote:
>> Or are you suggesting that regardless, 4.1.1. automatically makes
>> it a fail for 2.4.2. as well?
>
> FWIW, I was kind of thinking about that as well (and along the same
> lines): given that both 2.4.2 and 4.1.1 are both A level
> requirements, it's not so much that 4.1.1 'trumps' 2.4.2, but failing
> either means you fail level A compliance, so...

So, overall it's a failure to meet level A, yes. However, that has 
nothing to do with Steve's "we should not allow stuff that fails a 
normative requirement" in reference to two separate SCs? Unless you 
stipulate explicitly that the pass/fail of any SC also hinges on the 
solution actually used to achieve the pass not contravening any other SC 
of the same level...which seems pointlessly complex, because - as you 
say - it'll fail overall regardless for that level.

So, I still contend: <title> in <body> would pass 2.4.2, but fail 4.1.1.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]

www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
______________________________________________________________
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
______________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 19:36:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:50 UTC