- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:36:01 +1100
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "'"'xn--mlform-iua@målform.no' <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, rubys@intertwingly.net, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > Silvia Pfeiffer writes: > > What about annotating the Requirements document we prepared with > pointers to the technology that implements them? > > Would that be a useful way for people to understand what aspects of HTML > 5 media provide support for which specific alternative media renderings? > Is this a useful way to extend the value of that document? You'll recall > PF has put the Requirements doc on a W3C Note track. Would this kind of > annotation help? Or just confuse? You're referring to this one, I assume: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/media-accessibility-reqs/ I don't mind that. I could do it - it'd be simple. BTW: I've always wanted to ask: how did you decide who to make the editor of that document? Regards, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 23:36:57 UTC