- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 01:17:48 -0600
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Sam, >> What was unclear in the "Timeline to Last Call" is that, the phrase >> "Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration" >> actually meant that January 22, 2010 was the deadline for all other >> situations. Issue 30 didn't even have a bug so I did not consider that >> date pertained to Issue 30. >> >> My focus was on: >> >> "Feb 23, 2011 - every issue has at least one Change Proposal >> Consequences of missing this date: issues will be closed without >> prejudice and marked POSTPONED; can be reconsidered during LC or for a >> later version of HTML." >> >> If I had known January 22 was the deadline to submit a Proposal for >> Issue 30, I would certainly would have met it. But I didn't know that. >> I was taking my time. Building my case. > > I continue to recommend that you take your time and build your case. > > I also reaffirm the understanding our common understanding[1] that once > we passed the January 22nd deadline for the submission of proposals, the > understanding was that once an issue is closed it loses its status as a > pre last call issue. > > If this is something you would like to pursue, I would recommend that > you send an email to the team contact like the one Steve sent on issue > 133[2]. I won't be pursuing the process problem. It wasn't a common understanding, Sam. It was as clear as mud. If anyone has suggestions for improvement to the longdesc proposal please let me know. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 20 February 2011 07:21:00 UTC