Closed anssiko closed 3 months ago
@kenchris thanks for your review.
@matatk I note this PR reflects the original text that had APA consensus so I leave it to your consideration whether to integrate some of these suggestions. I consider APA to own the Accessibility section and should you have new information we are happy to receive further contributions at any time.
Thank you @anssiko, @kenchris, @rakuco for your suggestions and comments. I think, as I don't have write access, I can't 'accept' your suggestions in the GitHub sense, but we are happy to accept all of them.
(If I'm wrong about that, and there is something I can do to move things along, let me know - I haven't started a review yet, because I think it would be outdated if you then accepted your suggestions, but again, if I'm wrong about that, let me know.)
I think all of your suggested changes would count as (significant) editorial improvements - we don't need to seek APA consensus again unless we made substantive changes to the meaning of the content.
PR updated. PTAL @kenchris @rakuco
Thank you all!
It is great to work with APA WG. Your contributions are always high quality, well received, and convey your entire group's insight.
Also thanks to our editors for review and suggestions that have been incorporated.
This text is authored by APA WG and its APA consensus is recorded in: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa-admin/2024Mar/0000.html
Preview | Diff