On editorial notes, the term "at-risk", and UA reqs for mainstream UI changes (Was: PFWG-ISSUE-690)

Even though the term has been in the published working draft for six months, the editorial note reference of "at-risk" seems to be a primary objection. I've changed the note to reference a new WG issue and removed that term. Even though these statements are technically still at-risk due to lack of implementation and unaddressed implementor comments, the editorial note now references a WG issue instead of saying "at-risk".

New note:

Source diff:

> Begin forwarded message:
> PFWG-ISSUE-690 (UA reqs for describedat): Implementor concerns for UA requirements in #aria-describedat [ARIA 1.1]
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/690

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 03:32:56 UTC