RE: CfC: Pull Request 137

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 2:27 PM

the technique to say HTML5 and make that that it made sense, but there was enough discussion about focusing on HTML (HTML5) that the group was interested in doing this sort of clean up.

The way I see it, if we don’t agree to the proposed change, we probably won’t do anything with the technique now as we have too many competing priorities to get into further debate on this topic and I expect that we would instead make a note to remember to revisit this when we do techniques for WCAG.Next. I would encourage people to think about whether the current state or the proposed state is preferred and one way or another let’s close this item out.

I’m still objecting to the CFC. This needs to be fixed properly to cite HTML 5 and XHTML 5, at a minimum.

I don’t accept that it would have to be postponed to WCAG.next, as I think there are changes that could be agreed upon without much further discussion.


________________________________

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.

________________________________