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

Re: disposition of ISSUE 30 cited in bug 10967 insufficient

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:16:01 -0500
Message-ID: <4CF62E71.50802@intertwingly.net>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: "'Gregory J. Rosmaita'" <oedipus@hicom.net>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com, janina@rednote.net, mike@w3.org, mjs@apple.com
On 11/30/2010 10:58 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>
> * Given the known history to date, Re-open Issue 30 (@longdesc) and request
> the further data that has been referenced in this and other current threads
> be brought forward (although much of it is readily available now at a
> private URL hosted by Laura Carlson (given that the W3C Wiki page was locked
> down due to contention)

While neither of us were required to do so, both Maciej and I have 
indicated that we believe that the information gathered so far seems 
reasonable to present to the WG now, should the parties collecting it 
deem it appropriate to do so.  I further support Maciej's point that the 
decision to reopen is not something that will itself be subject to 
discussion.

The operating assumption should be that once a Change Proposal has been 
brought forward with this information that Paul too will weigh in, and 
once any and all questions he raises have been addressed to his 
satisfaction that issue 30 will be reopened at that time.  Frankly, I 
don't expect this to be a problem.

There is no reason that that change proposal can't be hosted on the W3C 
Wiki page.  The original wiki page purported to capture all points of 
view, and that proved to be unworkable (no, I am not pointing fingers or 
taking sides).  The solution proposed was to have separate wiki pages to 
capture each point of view and to have the original page link to both. 
Any choice that Laura made to go further and take the page private was 
her own (and, again, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with 
that choice).

I also support Janina's point that there is no urgency to act now on 
longdesc, particularly when there are other items with real deadlines 
that need attention.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 11:16:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:26 GMT