public-comments-wcag20@w3.org from October 2008 by author

Andrew Arch

• Re: Additional resource for consideration (Friday, 31 October)
• Re: inconsitency with G122 (Friday, 31 October)

Dylan Nicholson

• RE: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout (Monday, 27 October)
• RE: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout (Friday, 24 October)
• RE: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout (Friday, 24 October)
• WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout (Wednesday, 15 October)

Gregg Vanderheiden

• RE: Image use cases that WCAG doesn't address (Thursday, 30 October)

Henri Sivonen

• Re: Image use cases that WCAG doesn't address (Friday, 31 October)

Jan Richards

• Re: WCAG 2: Request for Response (Thursday, 30 October)

Loretta Guarino Reid

• Re: WCAG 2: Request for Response (Friday, 31 October)
• WCAG 2: Request for Response (Wednesday, 29 October)
• WCAG 2: Request for Response (Wednesday, 29 October)
• WCAG 2: Request for Response (Wednesday, 29 October)
• WCAG 2: Request for Response (Wednesday, 29 October)
• WCAG 2: Request for Response (Wednesday, 29 October)
• Re: 18 point or 14 point bold (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: 18 point or 14 point bold (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: "URI" or "URL" (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: Example shows questionable implementation (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: Is the resource "Pick a heading" sending out the right message (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: Failure for 2.4.6 (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: large scale text for CJK (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: 18 point or 14 point bold (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: 18 point or 14 point bold (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: Image use cases that WCAG doesn't address (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: SC 3.2.5 vs. SC 2.2.4 and G75 and G76 (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: Editorial problems - German translation (Monday, 6 October)
• Re: H44 : sufficient technique for 3.2.4? (Monday, 6 October)
• Re: G65 - editorial correction (Monday, 6 October)
• Re: glyph for English (Monday, 6 October)
• Re: definition of "process" (Monday, 6 October)
• Re: on a full-screen window (Monday, 6 October)
• Re: "must be presented in non-text format" (Monday, 6 October)
• Re: "virtual magnifying glasses" in Note 1 for "viewport" (Friday, 3 October)
• Re: Note 5 in "conforming alternate version" (Friday, 3 October)
• Re: wording of "dialog" (Friday, 3 October)
• Re: "minimum" or "enhanced"? (Friday, 3 October)
• Re: Large Print (Friday, 3 October)
• Re: providing a multipage view rather than a single file version (Friday, 3 October)
• Re: Geospatial mapping applications (Friday, 3 October)
• Re: HTML techniques - WCAG 2: technique is duplicated (Friday, 3 October)

Makoto Ueki

• Re: WCAG 2: Request for Response (Friday, 31 October)
• Re: 18 point or 14 point bold (Friday, 24 October)
• Re: 18 point or 14 point bold (Friday, 24 October)

re-clf-nsi@tbs-sct.gc.ca

• RE: WCAG 2: Request for Response (Thursday, 30 October)

Shadi Abou-Zahra

• Re: WCAG 2: Request for Response (Thursday, 30 October)

Shawn Henry

• Praise for How to Meet WCAG 2.0 (Wednesday, 29 October)

WCAG 2.0 Comment Form

• Site name misspelled (Friday, 31 October)
• Is the resource "Pick a heading" sending out the right message (Wednesday, 8 October)
• Example shows questionable implementation (Wednesday, 8 October)

Last message date: Friday, 31 October 2008 23:53:39 UTC