W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

RE: Notice of impending Formal Objection to Issue 30 Decision (@longdesc)

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02e101cb3a7b$2d2774a0$87765de0$@edu>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> 
> For anyone who disagrees with the decision and would like to take
> further action, the following options are available:
> 
> (1) Enter a Formal Objection.
> (2) Provide new information that was not available at the time of the
> decision, which may lead to reopening the issue.
> 
> Point-by-point back and forth discussion is not really helpful at this
> stage. One of the two options above is required, for the issue to be
> revisited. John, I appreciate your passion on this issue, I hope you
> will channel it into one of these avenues.

Right, and amongst my fury was a number of specific questions to the
Chairs, culminating with: is there a preferred path forward, given two
options? 

It is my ultimate desire to work in the most profitable direction, and
also included in my note was a request for clarification regarding
measurable metrics, as it appears this was one of the criteria used in the
current decision. How much new information is required to re-open this
issue?

I believe that re-opening the issue, and supplying data that apparently
was missing is less disruptive overall, but until we (I) can get a handle
on what and how much missing data is required means making a decision on
which path to take difficult. Sam indicated:

	* use cases that specifically require longdesc, (How many?)

	* evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that growth
is expected to continue, (How is this to be measured? What is 'rapid'? How
do we 'prove' future events? Why is 'rapid' a requirement? Is not proof of
increased correct usage enough?)

	* widespread interoperable implementation. (Definition of
widespread? The W3C Criteria of 2 independent interoperable
implementations has already been met, so it is unclear how to satisfy this
further. How do we meet this requirement?)


Since all 3 chairs have signaled a willingness to work with those who wish
to continue to pursue this, I again respectfully ask for what metrics are
required to revisit this issue.

JF
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 00:05:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:12 UTC