LGTM. Thanks David. -t
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:26 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> I submitted comments on both charters:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0016.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0015.html
>
> (I'm still able to
I submitted comments on both charters:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0016.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0015.html
(I'm still able to revise them in the next 8 hours if there's
something that needs to be modified.)
-David
--
턞
A final clarification:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Tantek Çelik
wrote:
> Even if we (Mozilla) are delayed with implementation, we can
> still champion this stuff. We can still nominate someone to
> participate in the WG with subject matter expertise to help guide what
> we think will be
I also have a few comments on the draft APA charter at
https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter now that I've had a
chance to review it.
I think we should suggest that both:
* the first toplevel bullet point in the scope section
* the second bullet point in the success criteria section
be
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:48 PM, James Teh wrote:
> TL;DR: Thanks for the further explanation/clarification. I (reluctantly)
> agree that these concerns make sense and have nothing else to add as far as
> the response goes.
Thanks Jamie. I very much appreciate your thoroughness. The
additional
TL;DR: Thanks for the further explanation/clarification. I (reluctantly)
agree that these concerns make sense and have nothing else to add as far as
the response goes.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Tantek Çelik
wrote:
> > The only thing worth
> > noting is that while you say there's no need
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:57 PM, James Teh wrote:
> That all seems reasonable from a process perspective. The only thing worth
> noting is that while you say there's no need to delay for years, that may
> well be what ends up happening, and Mozilla will essentially be "blocking
> progress" on
That all seems reasonable from a process perspective. The only thing worth
noting is that while you say there's no need to delay for years, that may
well be what ends up happening, and Mozilla will essentially be "blocking
progress" on this front. We want "limited resources" to drive better
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:04 PM, James Teh wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
>> So some comments on the ARIA charter at
>> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter :
>> ...
>> I guess it seems OK to have only one implementation
>> if there's really only going
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> So some comments on the ARIA charter at
> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter :
> ...
> I guess it seems OK to have only one implementation
> if there's really only going to be one implementation on that
> platform... but
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> So some comments on the ARIA charter at
> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter :
tl;dr: We should show general support for work happening in this area
(per Jamie's email), however we should point out critical flaws in the
charter
So some comments on the ARIA charter at
https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter :
So one concern I've heard about these charters and that I probably
share is that the ARIA charter says:
For every platform with mappings in an Accessibility API Mapping
specification, at least one
I (and others in the accessibility team) think we should support these
charters. The ARIA working group is especially important in the future
evolution of web accessibility. I have some potential concerns/questions
regarding the personalisation semantics specifications from APA, but
they're more
The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group
https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter
Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) Working Group
https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter
14 matches
Mail list logo
