W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

RE: Discussion on Change Proposal for ISSUE-66

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:07:36 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "'Matt May'" <mattmay@adobe.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <022f01ca9c80$d9388f70$8ba9ae50$@edu>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> 
> Ok. What I'm trying to figure out is whether a general statement that
> repair techniques are allowed would be acceptable to everybody.

Can't speak for "everybody", but I agree that it is acceptable

> 
> I agree that it doesn't make sense to specifically mention techniques
> the practicality of which is uncertain. I think it would be better to
> list no specific techniques, or list some examples that are clearly
> practical today.

I think the suggestion to reference UAAG is the better way forward.  From
my perspective, Standards are by necessity "locked down", while techniques
documents and guidelines are evolutionary by design. Locking down "Refer
to UAAG" in the Standard introduces no downside, as UAAG can evolve to
accommodate newer techniques and technologies.

> 
> That would be great. This email is to double-check that we are really
> on the same page.

Seems we are.

JF
Received on Saturday, 23 January 2010 23:08:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:00 GMT