- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:27:17 -0500
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
On 12/10/2011 05:23 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote: > Hi SAm > > you wrote: > > "> Is it fair to assume that this information is relevant to Issue 192?" > > I think it is fair to assume that this information is relevant to: > > ISSUE-182: Advice in spec about annotations promotes inaccessible content > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/182 > > ISSUE-190: Replace poor coding example for figure with multiple images > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/190 > > ISSUE-192: title attribute definition does not match reality > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/192 > > and the request to re-open Issue 80 (in regards to title/alt attribute > conformance > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle If you can bridge the gap between "publicly stated that they have no plans to"[1] and "stating that they won't implement what is the W3C Working Draft"[2], then I would say that that would be considered a strong objection. > regards > Stevef [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Dec/0013.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Dec/0012.html
Received on Monday, 12 December 2011 22:17:27 UTC