- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:08:13 -0000
- To: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] Sent: 04 November 2007 05:09 To: Richard Ishida Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007 -----Original Message----- From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] Sent: 04 November 2007 05:09 ... Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us by 19 November 2007 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether you are satisfied. Note that this list is publicly archived. ... WCAG 2.0 Editor's Draft of May-October 2007 at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/ ... > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 5: XML 1.0 Reference > Source: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200 7Jun/0032.html > (Issue ID: 1963) > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > > Comment from the i18n review of: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ > > > > Comment 14 > > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ > > Editorial/substantive: S > > Owner: RI > > > > Location in reviewed document: > > H58, Resources > > > > Comment: > > This is a strange version number, and the link points to the First > > Edition, whereas we are up to the 3rd edition now, and soon 4th. > > Please point to the generic URI > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag > > ================================= > > From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] > > Sent: 18 May 2007 00:43 > > To: Richard Ishida > > Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org > > Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April > > 2006 (2 of 2) > > Comment 24: > > > ---------------------------- > > Response from Working Group: > > ---------------------------- > > > > The link has been updated as proposed. > > The link is now good, but the link text refers to XML 1.01 - > that should probably be XML 1.0. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thanks. The link text has been updated as proposed.
Received on Friday, 16 November 2007 15:05:32 UTC