- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:24:26 -0400
- To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
At 4:26 PM -0700 17 05 2007, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote: >Dear Al Gilman , > >PLEASE REVIEW the decisions for the following comments and reply to >us by 7 June at public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org to say whether you are >satisfied with the decision taken. For starters, here are the IDs of issues where I am satisfied with the disposition of the comment. I hope you can deal with these by ID. I'm still working on others, and on comments to the new stuff in some cases. Some of them I still have to dig out what we were talking about, as the references into the old doc got dropped along the way. (list follows signature) Al LC-954 -- old problem fixed, will have suggestions about tightening new language (to follow) LC-954 -- old problem fixed, will have suggestions about tightening new language (to follow) LC-958 -- problem fixed LC-960 -- old problem fixed, will have suggestions about tightening new language (to follow) LC-978 -- old problem fixed, will have suggestions about tightening new language (to follow) LC-981 -- problem fixed LC-982 -- problem fixed LC-983 -- problem fixed LC-984 -- problem fixed LC-1192 -- problem fixed LC-1193 -- problem fixed LC-1194 -- problem fixed LC-1205 -- problem OBE. With the distancing of conformance from policy, this works. LC-1207 -- old problem fixed, will have suggestions about tightening new language (to follow) LC-1208 -- the response stated here is acceptable, but other comment responses contradict it; I will have suggestions about tightening new language (to follow) LC-1211 -- problem fixed LC-1212 -- problem fixed LC-1216 -- problem fixed LC-1217 -- problem fixed LC-1219 -- problem fixed
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2007 18:24:40 UTC