W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Request to re-open issue 131

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:27:17 -0500
Message-ID: <4EE4D9E5.6050808@intertwingly.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:11 UTC