Re: CFC - Metadata Conformance Change

(Potential language barrier here, but)...
Assuming that by "This information should be provided in a form that users can use, preferably machine-readable metadata", the use of the word "form" actually means "format", and not HTML form, then yes, +1 from me as well.


/Denis

--
Denis Boudreau,
Principal accessibility consultant & trainer
Deque Systems, Inc.
Cell: +1-514-730-9168
Email: denis.boudreau@deque.com [mailto:denis.boudreau@deque.com]

Keep in touch: @dboudreau [http://www.twitter.com/dboudreau]


On 2017-08-18 8:20:51 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
+1

It's good to get additional input external to the working group.

Kindest Regards,
Laura


On 8/17/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Call For Consensus — ends Monday August 21st at 7:00pm Boston time.
>
> The Working Group has reviewed and approved a change in the Conformance
> Claim Optional Requirements for inclusion in the Editor’s Draft, with the
> goal of obtaining additional input external to the working group.
>
> Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/17-ag-minutes.html
>
> The new Conformance Claim item can be reviewed here, in the context of the
> full draft (see the 4th bullet point):
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/ePub-metadata/guidelines/#conformance-optional
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being
> able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC
> deadline.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>


--
Laura L. Carlson