- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:45:53 -0400
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- CC: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 06/01/2010 06:37 PM, John Foliot wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> >> Such an approach should satisfy all stated objections. > > Hi Sam, > > Thanks for the 3 notes covering Issues 66, 90, and 91. > > Will there be forthcoming resolutions based upon these decisions? While an > 'answer' seems apparent in all three responses, I do not see any > actionable item(s). Some clarification would be appreciated: for example > in the case of Issue-66, are we to assume that this is also a formal > (informal?) request to the UAAG WG to ensure that the requirement is met > within UAAG2? I believe that Mike Smith has already made an informal request w.r.t issue 66, I'll let him confirm/deny/provide status. Additionally, there is an action required of the HTML editor to remove this paragraph -- which I agree, I should have made more clear. Ian please let me know when this is done so that I can close the issue. On issues 90 and 91, beyond the general request for people to file bugs and the potential for these issues to be reopened should there be new information regarding either lack of progress on implementation or complexity, there are no additional actions required at this time. > Thanks in advance > > JF - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 22:46:23 UTC