- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:07:36 -0800 (PST)
- To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "'Matt May'" <mattmay@adobe.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > Ok. What I'm trying to figure out is whether a general statement that > repair techniques are allowed would be acceptable to everybody. Can't speak for "everybody", but I agree that it is acceptable > > I agree that it doesn't make sense to specifically mention techniques > the practicality of which is uncertain. I think it would be better to > list no specific techniques, or list some examples that are clearly > practical today. I think the suggestion to reference UAAG is the better way forward. From my perspective, Standards are by necessity "locked down", while techniques documents and guidelines are evolutionary by design. Locking down "Refer to UAAG" in the Standard introduces no downside, as UAAG can evolve to accommodate newer techniques and technologies. > > That would be great. This email is to double-check that we are really > on the same page. Seems we are. JF
Received on Saturday, 23 January 2010 23:08:28 UTC