+1 for “last reviewed date” JF On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:28 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] > *Sent:* Monday, May 02, 2016 7:25 AM > > That would work for me... > > > I wouldn’t object to it, although I think all of the techniques in a > document should be reviewed in the weeks prior to publishing it as a W3C > note. > > > > Of course, if a database model were to be adopted then the “last reviewed > date” idea makes much more sense. The underlying concept is that techniques > would be reviewed via a database – similar to a bug tracking system – and, > once approved, they would automatically be included in the next published > “snapshot”. > > > > ------------------------------ > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or > confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom > it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail > in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or > take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete > it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. > > Thank you for your compliance. > ------------------------------ > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Consultant Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Monday, 2 May 2016 14:23:38 UTC