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
