I'm withdrawing the proposal to amend the conforming alternative definition, and will try, as Patrick, John and Jason suggest, to ensure the concern (about non-conforming breakpoint variations of components) is addressed as we are writing new Success Criteria. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:25 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:39 PM > > I've rolled back to the Note 8 that we were close on, and added your note > 9. > > *[Jason] Conforming alternate versions have always been seen as a last > resort, so the note doesn’t change anything substantial, in my view (which > is good). They’re surely also too much work for developers unless they’re > generated automatically.* > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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. > ------------------------------ >
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2016 11:18:06 UTC