- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:47:28 -0700
- To: "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, jcraig@apple.com, franko@microsoft.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, david.bolter@gmail.com
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:12:50 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 24, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > >> Maciej, you should know that, currently, if this proposal goes forward >> the members of the canvas accessibility subteam believe that this >> proposal should be in addition and not a replacement for the existing >> proposal. >> > > Just so the Chairs are clear on how the issues relate - does anyone feel > that the usemap proposal should be *instead of* the accessibility DOM > approach, rather than *in addition* as Richard describes? There is a mixed dependency here. My counter-proposal for ISSUE-74 is effectively *instead of* ISSUE-105 (since it presupposes a particular resolution to that issue). The original Accessibility TF proposal for ISSUE-74 is *in addition* to (since it is orthogonal to) ISSUE-105. So we can: Accept the Accessibility TF proposal for 74, accept Steve's canvas usemap proposal Accept the Accessibility TF proposal for 74, reject Steve's canvas usemap proposal Accept my counter proposal for 74 (which automatically resolves Steve's proposal) Reject both proposals for 74, accept Steve's proposal Reject both proposals for 74 and Steve's proposal I hope that clarifies things. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 18:48:31 UTC