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

Re: [media] re the multitrack activity

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:56:24 +1100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimyTtwrK2ZQ_=3HFK5-ftgx328kuH5Yh29x41+a@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:37 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> I guess the problem is that there isn't really much of a disagreement
>> with the spec. The problem is rather that this is a new feature and
>> needs some serious work to analyse all the implications. I don't feel
>> comfortable putting forward a single one of the options as a solution
>> to the problem at this stage. I could make a change proposal that
>> could include multiple options and their advantages and disadvantages,
>> but having a dispute with myself doesn't seem productive towards
>> finding a solution.
>>
>> I guess what I am saying is that from an accessibility viewpoint we
>> absolutely need a solution to this problem in the spec, but the given
>> timeline is just not appropriate to propose an adequate solution and
>> the discussions have to continue across all the stakeholders.
>>
>
> Hi Silvia,
>
> As a thought, and as a follow up to Maciej comments, it appears at this
> time that we are starting to narrow down the viable options to one of 3
> (Options 2, 3 and 7 AFAICT), and we can continue to discuss this on our
> media call Wednesday (Thursday for you). I think the Chairs are suggesting
> that we can submit change proposals for these three options and then
> continue to work on details and specifics, further refining the CPs (and
> even perhaps retiring one later on if that is the case).
>
> JF


There as also support for Option 1 and Eric supported a variant, which
should become option 8. That makes it 5 options and we still haven't
heard out all the stakeholders. If we submit 5 change proposals, then
two get accepted, and in next months we have, say, 2 more new ones
appear of which the browsers decide to implement, say, one, then I
worry that we have made a WG decision that is not supported by a
browser/reality and that may inhibit progress rather than support it.

Instead, I would prefer to delay proposals, but absolutely continue
discussions. I'd be more than keen to discuss options 1,2,3,7 and 8 in
this week's call. But I think realistically we will not be in a
position to make a decision. I honestly did not expect this issue to
turn up such a large interest in this many groups of the W3C.

In summary, I'd be happy to turn this into a last call issue, but this
should of course be something we discuss and decide on the call this
week.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 00:00:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:31 GMT