W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Lack of showing amendments

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:41:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=5cOR4nnWV5+VHVjZB8DFNK05FLKu2+8k-y3nu@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sheena McCullagh <sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Sheena McCullagh
<sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Many thanks for this, but I'm now more confused.  When you follow the links
> from http://www.w3.org/WAI/ and http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/ and
> http://www.w3.org/News/2010#entry-8851 they don't take you through to the
> diff marked versions, but to the 8 July versions which aren't diff marked.

Correct. The normative versions are not diff-marked. However, if you
open the documents at the links in the announcement, just before the
Abstract is a section that says

"This document is also available in these non-normative formats:

    * Single file version
    * Single file diff-marked version showing revisions since 11
December 2008, and
    * Alternate Versions of Understanding WCAG 2.0, "

The second link will take you to a version of the document that
contains the diff-markup. Those are the links listed in my previous
message.

Loretta

>
> In fact I couldn't find a link on the web site to the diff marked versions
> at all.
>
> I note the diff marked versions are dated as June 2010, whereas the ones
> without the diff marks are dated 8 July.
>
> It was these latter ones, which are the ones comment has been invited on via
> the web site, which I was suggesting ought to be diff marked, not the ones
> you sent me links for and which I couldn't find on the web site.
>
> Hence my original suggestion still stands.
>
> Sheena
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: 30 July 2010 21:57
> To: sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk
> Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Lack of showing amendments
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:56 AM,  <sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Name: Sheena McCullagh
>> Email: sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk
>> Affiliation: Member of the public
>> Document: W2
>> Item Number: (none selected)
>> Part of Item:
>> Comment Type: general comment
>> Summary of Issue: Lack of showing amendments
>> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
>> Some of us struggle to spot changes/proof read.  It would therefore have
> been exceptionally useful if the amendments/changes in the 8 July drafts had
> been marked to show the differences between those documents and the existing
> WAIG2.
>>
>> Proposed Change:
>> Please mark amendments/changes in some way - including where you have
> 'repaired' broken links.
>>
> ================================
> Response from the Working Group
> ================================
> The draft documents released for public review contain links to
> diff-marked versions:
>
> Understanding WCAG 2.0, Single file diff-marked version showing
> revisions since 11 December 2008,
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2010/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20100708/complete-diff
> .html
>
> Techniques for WCAG 2.0, Single file diff-marked version showing
> revisions since 11 December 2008,
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2010/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20100708/complete-diff.html
>
> Unfortunately, the diff mark-up will not catch links whose only change
> is to their targets.
>
> While we believe that all links were reviewed and were either working
> or removed when the draft documents were released, we have no way of
> ensuring that those links continue to stay unbroken.
>
>
> Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact
>
>
> On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 July 2010 21:42:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:13 UTC