W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Request to re-open issue 131

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 23:08:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4EE2DB57.4010502@intertwingly.net>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
CC: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, dbolter@mozilla.com, franko@microsoft.com, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 12/09/2011 10:46 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 12/9/11 7:25 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 12/09/2011 05:42 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>>> I see Ian replaced the entire Canvas 2D API spec. without a formal
>>> proposal:
>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
>> Should a formal proposal not be forthcoming, and should you be able to
>> obtain testimonials from at least two major implementors that that
>> they would be willing to implement your proposal should it be adopted,
>> then you have nothing to worry about. If you need to modify your
>> Change Proposal(s) in order to obtain these testimonials, you have the
>> opportunity to do so. We've not established a deadline yet for this,
>> but the earliest deadline we would impose would be late January by
>> this point. It could possibly even be later.
> I'm not intimately familiar with W3C processes -- but I must ask -- why
> do you claim this action is "nothing to worry about"? The latest
> revision reverts changes made by the chair decision "applied no later
> than the end of day on the Thu 12th of May [2011]".
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0138.html

The issue is now reopened, you can verify that status yourself:


If, as I stated above, if there is no formal proposal that covers the 
changes the editor has elected to make, and we obtain testimonials that 
the changes that were previously proposed and were adopted would be 
implemented, then I see absolutely no reason to believe that the next 
time we close issue 131 that we will come to the same decision.

Meanwhile, there is an opportunity to address one or both of the exclusions.

> The proposal Richard has been floating recently simply covers
> TextMetrics and has little-to-nothing to do with the chair decision from
> May. It was requested that the issue remain separate from the May action
> by the chairs.

That's not what was said.  What was said was "Proposals to add baseline 
measurement support can be considered if sufficient detail is provided."

> I'm thoroughly confused as to what the subject is, when you are
> referring to "your proposal". What weight or authority does the decision
> from May have? The patch was applied by W3C staff as the editor would
> not apply it himself. The editor recently reverted the change, and
> neither the chairs nor editor have provided an explanation.

We vacated that decision for the reasons specified.  If you are unhappy 
with the chairs action in this matter, I encourage you to take this 
matter up with PLH.  However I will again state that from my perspective 
if you can't get implementers lined up, it doesn't much matter.  And if 
you can get implementers lined up and nobody follows through to prepare 
a suitable proposal to match the edits that Ian has made, then you have 
nothing to worry about.

>>> Could you please clarify how this is consistent with the HTML working
>>> groups decision policy or with the process you refer to below?
>> There exists a document in CVS with Ian's name on it with the
>> following text prominently in the frontmatter:
>> The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft
>> does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working
>> group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any
>> section of the specification, one can usually find many members of
>> the working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to
>> the current text, the existence of the section at all, or the idea
>> that the working group should even spend time discussing the
>> concept of that section.
>> If you would like to create a parallel document in CVS with your name
>> on it and the same disclaimer, we will help you do that. But I will
>> state that there really is no need to do that. Your Change Proposals
>> are sufficient.
>> I already stated why the Chairs elected to take this action. If you
>> have a problem with this, I encourage you to take this up with PLH.
>> Mike Smith will assist you in this effort should you decide to go this
>> route.
>> Obviously, I would encourage you to focus on obtaining implementer
>> testimonials instead of taking that path, but the choice is yours.
> I think we all understand that the existence of an implemented API
> across two independent implementations is an often used and accepted
> measure for writing the standard. Many implementers are hesitant to put
> in such implementations in relation to accessibility until there's some
> guidance from the w3c. We seem to be in a catch-22 here.

It's not a catch 22.  The text that you cited has been in place for over 
six months.  If you have implementations to point to, I encourage you to 
do so.

> Further, the editor of the HTML specification has repeatedly rejected
> use cases put forward regarding Canvas accessibility.

Once a bug is RESOLVED for any reason (even RESOLVED NEEDSINFO), take a 
careful read of the resolution text provided.  It will tell you what 
options are available to you.

>>> I also noticed Ian went into numerous related defects and added requests
>>> for use cases, such as:
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13578
>>> We have on numerous occasions provided information on things like
>>> providing the bounds of an object such as Frank Olivier presented at
>>> TPAC. Please refer to the use cases minuted at the TPAC discussion.
>> I'm pleased to see that things are progressing again. As to Ian's
>> request: since you state that the data is already publicly available,
>> I encourage you to provide pointers to that data.
> I've repeatedly written summaries on this list, and will continue to
> point to that data. There is a summary in the bug report itself, in
> fact, that bug report was simply issued based on a lengthy summary of
> use cases and arguments against those cases.

If there is a summary in the bug report itself, it doesn't need to be 

>> In any case, if for any reason these bugs aren't resolved to your
>> satisfaction by December 31st 2011[1], you will have the opportunity
>> to escalate the bugs and propose your own resolutions in the form of
>> concrete Change Proposals.
> They've been escalated as far as I'm aware.

Since you haven't specified a bug number, I can't verify this.  The bugs 
that are current escalated can be found here:


If the bug that you are thinking of is not on that list, I again 
encourage you to read the resolution text that is provided in the bug 
report itself.

> The HTML editor continues to assert that interactive Canvas
> accessibility is not an issue as Canvas should not be used for
> interactive components, beyond an arbitrary set of button, checkbox and
> radio. This is reflected on the whatwg specification.
> We're in a bit of a bind here.
> I'm sure vendors will move forward, regardless, as they have real-world
> commitments to accessibility. The chairs previously put forward a
> decision which has now been circumvented by the HTML editor. It seems
> odd to submit Change Proposals under such circumstances. Why go through
> the process if it holds no authority?

That text has been in place for six months.  We've had explicit 
statements to the contrary from implementors.  What's different about 
this go around is that we are asking for the statements from 
implementors up front.

>>> I am leaving for vacation in an hour and will be unavailable for mostly
>>> through the end of the year. I look forward to your reply.
>> Unfortunately, I wasn't around to respond within the hour. Hopefully
>> you will see this when you return.
> Cute.

Nothing cute intended by that statement.  In the interest of full 
disclosure, I live in Raleigh.  Take a look at the timestamp of 
Richard's email.  By the time I saw it, I was out to dinner.  They my 
wife and I, our daughter and a friend of hers went to see a play:


I responded as soon as I got home.  I will also note that as I continue 
to be in Raleigh, should you respond further tonight, I will likely not 
see it until the morning.

> Tell you what, Sam Ruby, I'll keep an eye on this thread while Richard
> is on vacation.
> If you feel it worth your time to respond, here I'll be.

While I have responded, what I am requesting is that those interested in 
pursuing this either post vendor testimonials or get with PLH.  There 
still will be plenty of opportunity to obtain and provide these in at 
least the first part of January, so there is no need to rush to obtain 
these before everybody else disappears.

> Meanwhile, I will comply with Ian Hickson's request, posting links to
> the various use cases discussed on this list over the past two years.


> -Charles

- Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 10 December 2011 04:09:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:25 UTC