- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:10:34 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
On 04/29/2011 05:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > Steve, are your concerns addressed by the latest patch as well? Just for clarity: Rich did not say that all of his concerns were addressed; he merely said that this part of the patch is acceptable and that he would review the entire patch. > Regards, > Maciej - Sam Ruby > On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > >> Yes. >> >> >> Rich Schwerdtfeger >> CTO Accessibility Software Group >> >> <graycol.gif>Sam Ruby ---04/29/2011 03:28:17 PM---On 04/29/2011 04:04 >> PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> >> From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> >> To: public-html@w3.org <mailto:public-html@w3.org> >> Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS >> Date: 04/29/2011 03:28 PM >> Subject: Re: Bug 11239 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> On 04/29/2011 04:04 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> > >> > I've tried to add a note to this effect. >> > >> > New patch on the bug: >> > >> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=981 >> >> Specifically: >> >> > + On platforms where the user agent cannot determine the >> > + blink period and cannot provide a default blink period, the >> > + attribute should return −1. >> >> Rich, is this acceptable? Can you review the proposed patch and >> identify any other issues that that you might have with this patch? >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 22:11:05 UTC