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

Bug 9241 (was Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:57:45 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimWmJN6JSiegPMsVKF6tEcYFE4yATsw2xgRHhap@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Julian,

> In which case the original bug [1] should be re-opened, right?

> [1] <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9241>

Thanks, Julian.

Because, the change was reverted, I reopened  Bug 9241 for the spec to
explicitly state, "For guidance on accessibility requirements for text
alternatives authors should consult WCAG 2.0" and link to WCAG 2.0.

Ian, if you intend to mark 9241 WONTFIX could you please do that soon,
I can raise an issue?

Steve, if you like we can collaborate on writing the change proposal.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 22.06.2010 10:06, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> ...
>>> Either there is a problem with it or there is not. To fix it in just
>>> one spec is, in itself, an indication that convergence is felt to be
>>> an important criteria.
>>
>> Fair enough. Since I feel, as you do, that convergence is an important
>> criteria, I've done as you suggest and reverted the change from the
>> W3C copy.
>> ...
>
> In which case the original bug [1] should be re-opened, right?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9241>
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 08:58:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:10 GMT