- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:36:48 -0400
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 04/14/2011 12:52 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote: > > Text Alternatives Subgroup Timeline and Scope Discussion > > JB: LauraC volunteered via email > ... timing issue with regard FO -- > ... timing distinction -- FOs not normally taken up until CR stage, > but an important exception -- any FO can be appealed to director, can > be appeal for expedited review -- can be considered nearly > immediately -- > ... not convenient or welcome, but if need to address now, then need > to address now > ... surprised at what i am hearing > > JS: not on table at time of @longdesc conversation Just an observation, but the current status of ISSUE-30 longdesc is that this was already reopened, and that people are actively working on improving the Change Proposal. As to ISSUE-32 table-summary and ISSUE-142 poster-alt, I encourage everybody to read the "Revisiting this Issue" sections in both decisions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0690.html It is my opinion that any request for an expedited review without providing this information would be unlikely to receive serious consideration by the Director, but I recognize that that is just my opinion. On the other hand, I can speak authoritatively on this: providing the information that the chairs requested, if found to be complete, would result in the issue being reopened, and no FO would be necessary. - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 18:37:08 UTC