- From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:34:59 -0400
- To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
- Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Harvey, Thank you for reviewing WCAG 2.0. >A. WCAG 2.0 Guidelines Nits: > >In retrospect, from my printed copy, I could not find in the preceding, >the meanings of >the [I] or [V] Others questioned this as well. We've decided to remove these markings from the document since they are no longer used. >Guideline 1.2 Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia. > >Many ephemeral TV broadcasts do not deserve more than whatever concurrent >captioned text >there might have been. Please clarify this statement. What are you recommending that we change? >B. WCAG 2.0 Checklist Nits > >Per section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy, Working Group participants have >150 days from >the title page date of this document > > [actually, shouldn't it refer to WCAG 2.0 document date] yes, although it is the same date. >to exclude essential claims from the W3C RF licensing requirements with >respect >to this document series. Exclusions are with respect to the exclusion >reference document, >defined by the W3 Patent Policy to be the latest version of a document in >this series that is >published no later than 90 days after the title page date of this document. > >My concerns are: > >1. Only Working Group participants have the right to exclude essential claims. > >Few W3C Member Organizations are unrepresented in the Working Group. > >2. The extra 90 days seems to permit retroactive claims. Interesting questions. I'll pass them on to our patent policy wonks. Best, --wendy
Received on Friday, 12 August 2005 00:35:12 UTC