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

James Craig wrote:
> 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.

Hi James,

I just wanted to jump in here to a) say thanks for making this editorial
change, and b) I personally felt that you were NOT wrong in pointing out the
editorial note in the current draft. While it is/was somewhat unusual to use
the language you chose (the new edit is much better), it WAS responsible of
you to point it out, and to ensure that there is ongoing discussion around
this particular attribute. More than anything else, I think we need to
continue talking about this, and your pointing it out has kicked-off that

Also, just in case nobody has said it recently, thanks for your hard work
and dedication to the ARIA effort - I for one do appreciate it.



(PS - I hope you find some time to respond to some of my other questions,
posted earlier)

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 18:54:09 UTC