Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep

Yes the issue should have been there. I've put it in but the draft was 
already staged for publication which meant I had to redo a bunch of 
manual stuff.

Everybody - it's now officially too late for any more editorial changes, 
even oversights that the editors should have caught. In future please 
make sure to review the doc closely during the review window, as after 
that window closes many steps take place that make it hard to address 
late feedback.


On 2/26/2017 1:11 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Michael and all,
> Thank you for your work on this.
> Will all of the new SCs have editor's notes and links to their related 
> issue/pull request?
> If so, I noticed that the animation on interactions SC doesn't have an 
> editor's note or links to issue 18 or pull request 96.
> Kindest regards,
> Laura
> On Feb 24, 2017 1:49 PM, "Michael Cooper" < 
> <>> wrote:
>     A couple editorial issues that people raised on the list and I
>     changed for the publication:
>       * The orange borders for proposals are now red and pass the
>         color contrast test;
>       * The instructions in the intro more clearly indicate that they
>         are indicated as "[Proposed]" with brackets, which now works
>         as a search term for people wanting to find them that way;
>       * There's a brief clause pointing out that there are also
>         proposed definitions to look at;
>       * Nobody complained about this, but the "Principle",
>         "Guideline", and "Success Criterion" at the start of headers,
>         and the "Level" in the conformance level indicator, are no
>         longer CSS generated content. However, in the TOC those words
>         are not used (just the section numbers) because of how the W3C
>         stylesheets rendered it. I'll work on solving that for future
>         publications.
>     Some of these changes are not in the rawgit because they required
>     manual edits to the snapshot that will be published. I'll try to
>     get the github versions up to snuff soon, it will require a little
>     script work.
>     Michael

Received on Monday, 27 February 2017 15:03:23 UTC