SC 1.3.5 isn't a challenge for non-web technologies

[awkawk]

In writing WCAG 2.1 we were very careful to write 1.3.5 in a way that could apply to future technologies but wouldn't apply until they were ready for it.

We avoided using the "markup languages" text because there is currently only one markup language or technology that supports this SC (HTML).

In 1.3.5, the second bullet makes this clear:

• The content is implemented using technologies with support for identifying the expected meaning for form input data.

If an input field is implemented using a technology that supports the identification of the meanings that are supported in HTML 5.2, then those need to be used. For example, PDF doesn't provide this support today, but if PDF 4.0 implements the ability to do so the SC will require that authors use that capability.

As a result, unless there are other examples for Challenge 4, it may be hard to retain this as a challenge.

[detlevhfischer]

Hi @awkawk - somewhat tangential to this - would you care to register your position regarding #935 ?

[sajkaj]

The above sounds like a good start on more content for Challenge #4 in general, whether or not 1.3.5 stays there. It will be interesting to learn whether we're doing better than at the time of WCAG2ICT.

[alastc]

I think listing 1.3.5 as an example needs to be removed. If we have an example that doesn't really fit the meaning of the category, that will encourage more examples like that.

[sajkaj]

Reference to SC 1.3.5 is now removed. This issue is now addressed beginning in the first paragraph of Challenge #4 with several sentences in the first paragraph beginning with: "Furthermore, the state of programmatic test tools."