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

+1 on JF comments

On 12/11/14, 12:53 PM, "John Foliot" <> wrote:

>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
>editorial note in the current draft. While it is/was somewhat unusual to
>the language you chose (the new edit is much better), it WAS responsible
>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 20:30:07 UTC