- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:21:29 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Hi Sam, On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > I want to preface this reply with a comment that I deeply respect the > attention to detail that Laura puts to both her concrete proposals and on > capturing requirements. Thank you. > I will say that this particular reply doesn't live up to that high standard. I am sorry that you feel this way. > On 09/18/2012 08:47 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: >> >> Hi Rich, >> >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger >> <schwer@us.ibm.com <mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote: >> >> Sorry, folks, I am on vacation but I wanted to weigh in briefly. >> >> So, there are really only two options >> >> There is only one options as number two would be unacceptable as >> previously discussed. > > > Just as the HTML WG chairs agreed to reopen the previous decision based on > new information, I encourage you to continue to be open to discussion. Well, the clock is ticking and we need to have the HTML WG survey soon. With the exception of Janina spotting two typos and Chaals offering some thoughts for improvement for the overlay text, this thread has rehashed the same discussion that has taken place since 2007. No new information has been offered. What do you consider new information, Sam? Thanks. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 14:22:04 UTC