Re: Request to re-open issue 131

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