- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 08:23:05 +0100
- To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>
- cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
> You assume that each report email message is automatically copied > to the offender as it is received. The time of receipt isn't an adequate > identification of the offender's version, that may have been updated > during the review time of the reporter. OK I got your point. I could capture the date the report is made in step one (as early as possible) and add it in the final message sent. Your web site http://www.offender.com/page Version Date: Sat Nov 7 04:08:51 1998 has been found to have to one or more accessibily problems. > > From: webmaster@offender.com > > To: w3c-wai-report@w3.org > > cc: reporter@foo.com > > Subject: Re: WAI Report - www.offender.com/page > > ------- > > > >which goes to the list archive/forum of discussion. > But unless some part of the subject changes, the forum will have > no obvious distinction about the offender's version being reported. > True the timestamp is OK for rare updates. It doesn't work for fast- > changing URLs. Ideally, a copy of the dated version should be kept and linked from the report as well, to serve as justification.
Received on Monday, 9 November 1998 02:23:12 UTC