Re: duplicate SCs filed

Happy to change handles , however it might help to have it the same because they address exactly the same thing, and it is just the scope that is different - so looking at the three together kind of makes sense. 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:49:36 +0200 David MacDonald<david100@sympatico.ca> wrote ---- 

Got it..


Perhaps we should have different handles for different SCs... 

I found it confusing, especially since the text of the SC is almost the same.



Cheers,
David MacDonald 
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902LinkedIn 

twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
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



 
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:53 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
Hi David

Issue 31 and 41 are similar but not duplicates. They have very different scopes which enable a different conformance level and balance user need with author burden. 



All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter







---- On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 10:21:50 +0200 David MacDonald<david100@sympatico.ca> wrote ----


Issue 73 and 79 seem to be duplicates LVTF
Issue 8 and 80 seem to be duplicates LVTF
Issues 30 and 41 

Cheers,
David MacDonald 
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902LinkedIn 

twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
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