W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2005

RE: FW: Action Items

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:46:24 -0600
To: "'Tim Boland'" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005e01c607cf$a654fc50$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
Hi Tim,

 

 

   Thanks for the note.   Yours was not an outstanding action item (you
completed it) so it is not part of our open action items (and won't expire).

 

RE putting it in bugzilla,  -  I think that would be a good place to put it
so that we keep it on our to do list until done.  I have done so.  It is bug
1793 now. 

 

By the way - you asked if this should be level 1 or 2.  If level 2 then it
would be unnecessary because of 2.3.2.   So it would have to be L1. 

 

RE identical language in the subprovision of  4.2 --- 4.2 is a quote of 2.3
so it should be there.   We could just point to 2.3.1 but that doesn't work
for the other provision..  But hmmmm.  Maybe we should point with the first
one anyway.     

 

I'll run this by the other editors.   Doesn't change the provision any but
may editorially be a better way to refer to it so that it doesn't look like
duplication - and the difference between the two subprovisions is clearer.
(e.g. one is a quote and one is a subset).  

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Tim Boland
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 8:12 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: Action Items

I submitted a post [1] in an attempt to complete an action item, from the 10
November 2005 WCAG WG teleconference, re: a new G2.3 success criterion (SC)
that addresses the provision of alternative equivalent content (issue).    I
believe this issue was to be deferred for consideration until the next
version of WCAG, but I didn't want to let the issue (or possibly the action
item?) expire on January 5.

Should I submit a bugzilla entry re: this issue?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST 


[1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005OctDec/0582.html


provision of alternative content for G2.3At 02:51 PM 12/22/2005 -0600, you
wrote:






We just noted that we have been generating action items at each meeting but
never following up.   Most are done or overcome by events (no longer apply
due to changes in documents since they were originally issued). 

 

Starting with the new year we will begin Action Item tracking.   Also all
action items will have a deadline.   If not done they will be reassigned or
expire.   If issue is still there we can take a new action item. 

 

If you have any action items that are still active  - please send them to us
so we can put them in.  All other action items will expire on Jan 5th and we
will start from there.  

 

Thanks much


Gregg + John

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>  

 

 
Received on Friday, 23 December 2005 14:46:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:41 GMT