- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:40:09 -0500
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
On 23 Jan 2008, at 2:34 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > On Wednesday 2008-01-23 14:01 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >> however, the issue as logged with the "Resolution" being "assumed >> editorial", and the post which points to the CSS 2.1 issues list > > Sorry, but what's the problem with this? Fixing the accessibility > of the document doesn't require group consensus on the changes; it's > a matter for the editor to fix. Given that it's on the issues list > and there's an action for the editor to fix it, why are you > complaining about it again? Only that the issue _as recorded_ might not adequately capture the issue, including the suggestions for how to fix. We just wanted to make sure that by the time the editor turned to the task of fixing this, that the WCAG2 technique would be under his/her nose. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/C7.html http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071211/navigation- mechanisms-refs.html Maybe this is all obvious to you CSS mavens. It hadn't been obvious to us. It took us a while to arrive at the technique that is suggested by WCAG2. So we didn't want that suggestion left behind when the issue was recorded. You know, three link rule? Al > > -David > > -- > L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ > Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ >
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 21:40:20 UTC