Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald (Tuesday, 28 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald (Tuesday, 28 June)
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop ALAN SMITH (Tuesday, 28 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Tuesday, 28 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop John Foliot (Tuesday, 28 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop John Foliot (Tuesday, 28 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Tuesday, 28 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald (Tuesday, 28 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald (Tuesday, 28 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald (Tuesday, 28 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 29 June)
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J (Wednesday, 29 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 29 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald (Wednesday, 29 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 29 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 29 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 29 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Alastair Campbell (Thursday, 30 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Alastair Campbell (Thursday, 30 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Thursday, 30 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Thursday, 30 June)
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J (Thursday, 30 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald (Thursday, 30 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald (Thursday, 30 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Thursday, 30 June)
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke (Thursday, 30 June)
Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 josh@interaccess.ie (Monday, 27 June)
Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Patrick H. Lauke (Sunday, 26 June)
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Wayne Dick (Wednesday, 29 June)
Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 josh@interaccess.ie (Monday, 27 June)
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald (Saturday, 25 June)
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald (Saturday, 25 June)
RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage White, Jason J (Saturday, 25 June)
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Laura Carlson (Monday, 27 June)
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Jim Allan (Tuesday, 28 June)
COGA SC lisa.seeman (Tuesday, 7 June)
COGA drafts lisa.seeman (Monday, 6 June)
- Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Thad C (Thursday, 26 May)
- Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick (Tuesday, 31 May)
- Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria lisa.seeman (Tuesday, 31 May)
- Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick (Tuesday, 31 May)
- RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Tuesday, 31 May)
- Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Detlev Fischer (Tuesday, 31 May)
- Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Patrick H. Lauke (Tuesday, 31 May)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Michael Pluke (Wednesday, 1 June)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Wednesday, 1 June)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Michael Pluke (Wednesday, 1 June)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Wednesday, 1 June)
- Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria David MacDonald (Wednesday, 1 June)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Wednesday, 1 June)
- Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Patrick H. Lauke (Thursday, 2 June)
- RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Thursday, 2 June)
- RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria lisa.seeman (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria josh@interaccess.ie (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria David MacDonald (Thursday, 2 June)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick (Thursday, 2 June)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick (Thursday, 2 June)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick (Thursday, 2 June)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Laura Carlson (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria David MacDonald (Thursday, 2 June)
- RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria David MacDonald (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria josh@interaccess.ie (Thursday, 2 June)
- Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Gregg Vanderheiden (Friday, 3 June)
- RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J (Monday, 6 June)
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick (Thursday, 2 June)
H91 changes Andrew Kirkpatrick (Wednesday, 25 May)
New Member Introduction Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L. (Monday, 23 May)
An introduction Shawn Lauriat (Tuesday, 10 May)
Pinch zoom David MacDonald (Tuesday, 10 May)
- RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only White, Jason J (Friday, 6 May)
- RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Friday, 6 May)
- RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only ALAN SMITH (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Laura Carlson (Friday, 6 May)
- RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only EA Draffan (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Patrick H. Lauke (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Detlev Fischer (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Sarah Horton (Saturday, 7 May)
- Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Andrew Kirkpatrick (Wednesday, 11 May)
- RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Alastair Campbell (Friday, 6 May)
- RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Friday, 6 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Alastair Campbell (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Jonathan Avila (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Alastair Campbell (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Monday, 9 May)
- RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald (Monday, 9 May)
- RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Monday, 9 May)
- RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang (Tuesday, 10 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald (Thursday, 12 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang (Friday, 20 May)
- RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Wednesday, 11 May)
- RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald (Wednesday, 11 May)
- RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH (Thursday, 12 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Thursday, 12 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Thursday, 12 May)
- Stepping up or down with the next step: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH (Thursday, 12 May)
- Further reading of WCAG 2.0 supporting docs for 3.3.2 seem to confirm change of content as I have been mentioning. ALAN SMITH (Tuesday, 17 May)
- RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 11 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Alastair Campbell (Monday, 9 May)
- Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 9 May)
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke (Friday, 6 May)
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Jonathan Avila (Friday, 6 May)
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Jonathan Avila (Friday, 6 May)
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) James Nurthen (Friday, 6 May)
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J (Monday, 9 May)
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald (Thursday, 12 May)
Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques josh@interaccess.ie (Wednesday, 27 April)
RE: Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J (Wednesday, 27 April)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Mike Elledge (Wednesday, 27 April)
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Wednesday, 27 April)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Joshue O Connor (Friday, 29 April)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Friday, 29 April)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Friday, 29 April)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Saturday, 30 April)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Katie Haritos-Shea (Saturday, 30 April)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Monday, 2 May)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Alastair Campbell (Tuesday, 3 May)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden (Wednesday, 4 May)
CfC: Issue 168 Andrew Kirkpatrick (Tuesday, 12 April)
CfC: Issue 157 Andrew Kirkpatrick (Tuesday, 12 April)
Re: CfC: Issue 157 John Foliot (Thursday, 14 April)
- RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... John Foliot (Friday, 8 April)
- RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... White, Jason J (Friday, 8 April)
- Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... David MacDonald (Saturday, 9 April)
- Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... David MacDonald (Saturday, 9 April)
- RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... John Foliot (Sunday, 10 April)
- FW: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... White, Jason J (Monday, 11 April)
CfC: Issue 171 Andrew Kirkpatrick (Tuesday, 5 April)
Re: CfC: Issue 171 David MacDonald (Wednesday, 6 April)
Re: CfC: Issue 171 Andrew Kirkpatrick (Friday, 8 April)
1.3.1 question Andrew Kirkpatrick (Friday, 1 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question ALAN SMITH (Friday, 1 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question Jonathan Avila (Friday, 1 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Friday, 1 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Andrew Kirkpatrick (Friday, 1 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question Jonathan Avila (Friday, 1 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald (Friday, 1 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Paul J. Adam (Friday, 1 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Mike Elledge (Friday, 1 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Saturday, 2 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question John Foliot (Saturday, 2 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Gregg Vanderheiden (Saturday, 2 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Alastair Campbell (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Adam Solomon (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Andrew Kirkpatrick (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Mike Elledge (Monday, 4 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question ALAN SMITH (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald (Monday, 4 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Mike Elledge (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald (Monday, 4 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Wayne Dick (Monday, 4 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Wayne Dick (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Wayne Dick (Monday, 4 April)
- 1.3.2 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.2 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 4 April)
- Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 4 April)
- RE: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH (Tuesday, 5 April)
- Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick (Wednesday, 20 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone thatare used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re[2]: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 josh@interaccess.ie (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 20 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH (Wednesday, 20 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Michael Pluke (Thursday, 21 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Thursday, 21 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 White, Jason J (Thursday, 21 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 David MacDonald (Thursday, 21 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 James Nurthen (Thursday, 21 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Thursday, 21 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 White, Jason J (Thursday, 21 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Thursday, 21 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila (Monday, 25 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 25 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 White, Jason J (Monday, 25 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila (Monday, 25 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 25 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Kurt Mattes (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick (Wednesday, 20 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone ALAN SMITH (Wednesday, 27 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone White, Jason J (Wednesday, 27 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Wednesday, 27 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Kurt Mattes (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke (Wednesday, 20 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick (Wednesday, 20 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila (Monday, 25 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Michael Pluke (Thursday, 21 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 David MacDonald (Thursday, 21 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila (Tuesday, 26 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone thatare used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH (Tuesday, 26 April)
- RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila (Tuesday, 26 April)
- Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF (Tuesday, 26 April)
- RE: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are usedeverywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH (Monday, 4 April)
- RE: 1.3.2 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 White, Jason J (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Paul J. Adam (Monday, 4 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question White, Jason J (Monday, 4 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Tuesday, 5 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Eric Eggert (Tuesday, 5 April)
- RE: 1.3.1 question John Foliot (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Gregg Vanderheiden (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Jonathan Avila (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 4 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. (Tuesday, 5 April)
- Re: 1.3.1 question Gregg Vanderheiden (Saturday, 2 April)
RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL (Friday, 1 April)
Re: 1.3.1 question Patrick H. Lauke (Monday, 4 April)
Last message date: Thursday, 30 June 2016 23:07:18 UTC