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

Re: ISSUE-31 Change Proposal

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:56:42 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <ADE2B925-ED09-4B54-90C5-51B8B8D64F9B@apple.com>
To: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>

Hi Matt,

On Jan 29, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Matt May wrote:

> On Jan 29, 2010, at 7:47 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Laura and Ian, could you please identify together the parts of this Change Proposal that are uncontroversial, and make sure they get applied to the spec ASAP?
> I have serious reservations about going this route.
> The TF has considered the issue of alt text in great depth, and it contains a number of pieces that need to work together. As Laura said, "The point of the change proposal is to address the whole problem comprehensively." This is the change proposal. It should be discussed as a whole. If it's taken apart, it leaves much more room for the carefully considered exceptions and provisos to be omitted or contorted if it's subjected to mix-and-match, line-item veto treatment.
> I support Ian and Laura marking up the parts of the proposal that are uncontroversial. I do not support putting the uncontroversial parts into the spec until we have arrived at a consensus on the whole problem. The risk of making the situation worse (and further damaging goodwill in the process) is too great.

1) The goal of the Change Proposal process is to resolve disputes. If there are changes that should be made that are not in dispute, those are best handled by just making those changes ASAP. In fact, making changes that narrow the scope of what is in dispute is a great thing to do even while Change Proposals are pending. If any remaining controversies have to go to a Working Group Decision, then the Working Group will only need to decide on the actual point in dispute, not on additional uncontroversial changes at the same time.

2) Making uncontroversial changes does not amount to a "line-item veto treatment". Any remaining areas of disagreement would still be subject to review by the full Working Group, as before. We would simply limit the debate to points that are actually in dispute.

3) If there are specific changes that, when separated from other changes, would make things worse instead of better in anyone's view, then we should call those out in the course of identifying changes that have consensus and perhaps hold off on making those changes. I would prefer we evaluate those concerns based on an actual proposed set of uncontroversial changes, rather than based on a general fear that there may be problems.

Received on Saturday, 30 January 2010 02:57:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:08 UTC