- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:33:42 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Julian, > my understanding is the poll will allow is to articulate a preference about > how the spec should treat @summary. Yes. Delineating open issues [1] in the spec and following W3C's due process is reasonable. The spec could be updated in this manner for other open issues [2] (@profile etc). John's text mends the process in one quintessential example, namely @summary. It is a good start. Best Regards, Laura [1]: Sam Ruby wrote to John Foloit > The way I would prefer to proceed with issues like this is for people > like yourself to draft an even-toned text expressing the fact that this > is an "open issue" (indicated in red boxes in the document, and marked > up with class="XXX") and for the draft to be published after this has > been added to the document. By even toned, I mean that things like > "unresolved" and "direct contradiction with WCAG 2 Guidance" are fine http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0908.html [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 13:34:17 UTC