W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

From: Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:29:21 +0100
Message-ID: <47D642E1.1040900@w3development.de>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Hi Loretta et al.

Loretta Guarino Reid schrieb:
> Before we
> proceed to implementation, we would like to know whether we have
> understood your comments correctly and whether you are satisfied with
> our resolutions.

Yes, I'm satisfied with your resolutions of the issues listed below.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1: missing failure list for SC 2.1.2 including F10
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0048.html
> (Issue ID: 2370)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> No list of common failures, whereas the Techniques document has F10
> for failing sc2.1.2
> 
> Proposed Change:
> add list of common failures listing F10
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you. We have fixed this error.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2: missing failure list for SC 3.3.2 including F82
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0049.html
> (Issue ID: 2371)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> No list of common failures, whereas the Techniques document has F82
> for failing sc3.3.2
> 
> Proposed Change:
> add list of common failures listing F82
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you. We have fixed this error.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 3: Wrong number for Understanding 1.4.7, Sufficient Techniques
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0041.html
> (Issue ID: 2363)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Numbering in the headline is wrong: "Sufficient Techniques for 1.4.6",
> must be 1.4.7
> 
> Proposed Change:
> "Sufficient Techniques for 1.4.6" -> "Sufficient Techniques for 1.4.7"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you. We have fixed this error.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 4: technique G140 listed under failures
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0047.html
> (Issue ID: 2369)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> "Failures for SC 1.3.1" lists technique G140
> 
> Proposed Change:
> remove G140 from list of failures
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you. We have corrected this error.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 5: Wrong numbering for Understanding 1.4.9 Advisory Techniques
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0046.html
> (Issue ID: 2368)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Numbering is wrong: "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.8", must be 1.4.9
> 
> Proposed Change:
> "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.8" -> "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.9"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you. We have fixed this error.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 6: Wrong numbering for Understanding 1.4.7 Advisory Techniques
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0042.html
> (Issue ID: 2364)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Numbering is wrong: "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.6", must be 1.4.7
> 
> Proposed Change:
> "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.6" -> "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.7"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you. We have fixed this error.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 7: Wrong numbering for Understanding 1.4.8 Sufficient Techniques
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0043.html
> (Issue ID: 2365)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Numbering is wrong: "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.7", must be 1.4.8
> 
> Proposed Change:
> "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.7" -> "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.8"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you. We have fixed this error.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 8: Wrong numbering for Understanding 1.4.8 Advisory Techniques
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0043.html
> (Issue ID: 2366)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Numbering is wrong: "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.7", must be 1.4.8
> 
> Proposed Change:
> "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.7" -> "Advisory Techniques for 1.4.8"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you. We have fixed this error.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 9: Wrong numbering for Understanding 1.4.9 Sufficient Techniques
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0045.html
> (Issue ID: 2367)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Numbering is wrong: Sufficient Techniques for 1.4.8", must be 1.4.9
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Sufficient Techniques for 1.4.8" -> Sufficient Techniques for 1.4.9"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you. We have fixed this error.
> 


-- 
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
                             (Te Deum, 4th cent.)
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 08:29:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:25 GMT