Re: Meeting with SVG, XHTML, WAI people to move forward on ARIA as a cross cutting technology

Mark,

Sorry, I meant xhtml 2 working goup. There is no "xhtml working group."
BTW if you click the link to XHTML on the W3C web site it goes the the
XHTML 2 working group.

I have to say I think you are going a bit overboard. We have bigger
problems here than the semantics of the subject line.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review  Board
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer


                                                                           
             "Mark Birbeck"                                                
             <mark.birbeck@for                                             
             msPlayer.com>                                              To 
             Sent by:                  "Anne van Kesteren"                 
             mark.birbeck@x-po         <annevk@opera.com>                  
             rt.net                                                     cc 
                                       Richard                             
                                       Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,     
             10/17/2007 11:12          "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>,   
             AM                        "XHTML2 WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>  
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: Meeting with SVG, XHTML, WAI    
                                       people to move forward on ARIA as a 
                                       cross cutting technology            
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi Anne,

On 17/10/2007, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:36:06 +0200, Mark Birbeck
> <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps you could post that 'reasonable explanation' when you have a
> > moment, or alternatively give the meeting a different title, and not
> > imply that the XHTML WG was included.
>
> There's no XHTML WG and therefore no such implication, as far as I can
> tell.

I need to check that I understand you. Are you saying that when
Richard sends a message to the lists, with the subject:

  Meeting with SVG, XHTML, WAI people to move forward on ARIA
  as a cross-cutting technology

I shouldn't worry about it, because by "XHTML people" Richard didn't
mean the W3C's XHTML 2 Working Group, but he meant some other kind of
'people', who just happen to like XHTML?

The only other meaning I can put on your words is that you are saying
"there is no XHTML WG...there is only an XHTML 2 WG", but I'm assuming
that you wouldn't waste your valuable time sending such a pointless
comment. :) So I'll stick with the first interpretation.

Anyway, the problem is that as the email I'm referring to was copied
to the XHTML 2 WG's mailing-list, and it had a title referring to
"XHTML people", unbiased bystanders with a bit of common sense would
almost certainly conclude that the "XHTML people" mentioned in the
subject line were actually representative of the working group.

I'd prefer that any such bystanders didn't get that impression.

Regards,

Mark

--
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.