W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:08:24 -0400
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "tink@tink.uk" <tink@tink.uk>
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <bc2d3f05-7eea-7214-c71e-2b6e792e4d9f@w3.org>
Well, a charter doesn't have "normative" and "non-normative" sections 
like a spec does. It just has what it says. In this particular case, the 
content in the deliverables section about regular updates repeated what 
was said in the background section, so removing one instance doesn't 
seem to change the meaning of the charter, particularly since it address 
activities that are outside of the three-year scope of this charter. Michael


On 13/10/2016 5:51 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Léonie,
> My understanding is that section 3.1 speaks to the normative documents 
> to be created  by the group, but is not different from the background 
> section. Michael, can you clarify?
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 5:11 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk 
> <mailto:tink@tink.uk>> wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/2016 22:43, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>> David,
>>> The chairs and Michael think that this change is editorial because it
>>> was already in the background and can be made without affecting the CfC.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry if this puts a spanner (monkey wrench) in the works, but the 
>> statement David would like removed is normative - so is this really 
>> an editorial change?
>>
>> Removing normative content would seem to negate those responses 
>> already received on this CFC (mine for one).
>>
>>
>> Léonie.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> @LeonieWatson tink.uk <http://tink.uk> Carpe diem
>>
Received on Friday, 14 October 2016 23:08:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:06 UTC