- From: CVS User lsilli <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 04:23:16 +0000
- To: public-html-commits@w3.org
Update of /sources/public/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide
In directory roscoe:/tmp/cvs-serv15611/html-xhtml-author-guide
Modified Files:
html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html
Log Message:
Fixed a typo/bad formulation.
--- /sources/public/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html 2013/09/02 04:10:51 1.124
+++ /sources/public/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html 2013/09/02 04:23:16 1.125
@@ -114,8 +114,8 @@
to understand these benefits in order to use and benefit from this syntax. But neither does anyone
need to exaggerate its benefits. For instance, polyglot markup does not add semantics. Polyglot markup does,
however, work to <em>preserve</em> semantics, including during the authoring process. Polyglot markup
- also doesn’t (at least not for the time being) ensure accessibility - as it does not any requirements
- that other relevant specs do not add. But it can work to <em>preserve</em> accessibility.</p>
+ also doesn’t ensure accessibility - as it does not add any requirements
+ that other relevant specs have not allready added. But it can work to <em>preserve</em> accessibility.</p>
<p>The motivation behind, and reason for polyglot markup to exist as a specification, is its widely supported
<a title="robustness">robustness</a>. With <a title="robustness">robust</a> (also known as conservative) markup, authors can <q cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#robust">
Received on Monday, 2 September 2013 04:23:17 UTC