- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:32:30 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Hi Sam, > * We have a set of proposals for the path forward and -- this is > the key part -- NO ACTIVE DISCUSSION OR SCHEDULE. I will note > that one of those proposals is from a co-editor of ARIA 1.0 > itself. Do you mean Rich and PF's formal objection [1]? They want one sentence removed, right? So why throw out the baby with the bath water? Eliminating the essential along with the inessential isn't prudent. Nuke the inessential/offending sentence from HTML5. Problem solved. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0402.html
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 14:33:01 UTC