- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:38:04 -0500
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Jason Kiss <Jason.Kiss@dia.govt.nz>
- CC: clown@alum.mit.edu, faulkner steve <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>, SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
On 2014-02-25 6:14 PM, Michael Cooper wrote:
> You could continue to refine thinking and begin to develop content in
> the meantime, and think about how you would like the modules to look
> as a stating point for the discussion in March. I don't want you to
> take this as trying to hold you up, but it's a choice of working on
> this or getting ARIA 1.0 out, and I believe the latter is the more
> urgent priority.
I don't want to interrupt the ARIA 1.0 process. Hopefully, the
following is an easy question: if I make edits to the current UAIG, and
publish them as editors' drafts, will that interfere with what you are
doing? I've been assuming it does, and held off on changing anything.
If that does interfere, a second possibility is to create a separate 1.1
UAIG editors' document, as was done for the aria-1.1 spec, and confine
the edits to that, is that okay? That's not ideal, but might work for
now, and then we can properly fork and tag, or move to mercurial, and
use ReSpec, etc, and so on...
/me trying find a solution that doesn't interrupt you.
--
;;;;joseph.
'A: After all, it isn't rocket science.'
'K: Right. It's merely computer science.'
- J. D. Klaun -
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 14:38:38 UTC