On editorial notes, the term "at-risk", and UA reqs for mainstream UI changes (Was: PFWG-ISSUE-690)

Even though the term has been in the published working draft for six months, the editorial note reference of "at-risk" seems to be a primary objection. I've changed the note to reference a new WG issue and removed that term. Even though these statements are technically still at-risk due to lack of implementation and unaddressed implementor comments, the editorial note now references a WG issue instead of saying "at-risk".

New note:
http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html#aria-describedat

Source diff:
https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/6acb90956dccdb43b86aa8cb2ec4f46ead777995


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> PFWG-ISSUE-690 (UA reqs for describedat): Implementor concerns for UA requirements in #aria-describedat [ARIA 1.1]
> 
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/690

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 03:32:56 UTC