[Bug 24168] Please revise new normative statement and example

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24168

Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---

--- Comment #7 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Liam R E Quin from comment #6)

> Closing as FIXED since the original comments were addressed.

Hi Liam,

I am reopening this bug as the normative statement has not been fixed and no
rationale has been provided for not adding the clause that I suggested, which
would fix it.

> The task force did not accept the change requested in the final comment

Could you please let me know:

* Where is it documented that the task force did not accept the change? 

* What is the rationale for not fixing the issue by adding a clarifying clause
to the end of the normative statement? Why not let people know when the
statement would be appropriate?  Specifically my question is why not add:

"and that standard provides increased accessibility."

So the full statement would read:

"Authors should not rely solely on longdesc when a standard exists to provide
direct, structured access and that standard provides increased accessibility."

Thank you,
Laura

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 12:25:43 UTC