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

RE: Agenda: HTML-A11Y Task Force on 17 February at 16:00Z for 60 minutes

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:41:23 +0000
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <E3EACD022300B94D88613639CF4E25F8186F428B@TK5EX14MBXC138.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I agree with all of Sam's points.

>Meanwhile, we are asking these same individuals to focus on the open issues we need to resolve between now and last call:
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/15


I especially agree with the above point about concentrating our resources on our remaining pre-LC issues.  

In fact on today's TF call I indicated that I would resist any Call for Change Proposals or Counter Propoals for a re-opened ISSUE-30 until we clear out our queue of pre-LC issues.  Of course I would personally apply this principle to all of the existing Last Call issues identified in:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/1


/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:13 PM
To: Laura Carlson
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Re: Agenda: HTML-A11Y Task Force on 17 February at 16:00Z for 60 minutes

On 02/17/2011 01:33 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
>>> Hopefully that will allow enough time for the HTML Working Group to 
>>> evaluate the proposal, the reverse the decision, and instate 
>>> longdesc into the spec before Last Call.
>>
>> Based on what I have seen, I do believe that you have enough 
>> information to reopen the issue.  That being said it is my continued 
>> position[4][5] that all escalations after Jan 22 are to be treated as LC issues.
>
> Issue 30 was escalated February 6, 2008.
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30


... and closed 13 Aug 2010.

> The request would be to reopen that previously escalated issue and 
> resolve it before last call based on new information.

If that request were to come in today, I would treat that as a request to reopen the issue on 2011 Feb 17, and therefore as a Last Call issue.

> Is that possible?

In short, I would oppose such an issue from being treated as a pre-LC issue.

I'll be blunt.  What I am about to say is with my co-chair hat on, but only representing 1 of 3 co-chairs:

Laura: the work you are now doing is excellent.  To everybody who feels that the decision was wrong or even hasty, I truly wish that even one of you had presented even a fraction of what Laura has now gathered.  In August of 2010, the discussion had been going on for 2.5 years.  Since then yet another half a year has passed.  If you had come forward with the type of data that Laura has now collected, you certainly would have made my life easier.

If we agree to reopen the issue (note: I said IF we chose to do so, even though it does seem quite likely at this point) the chairs would effectively be saying that there is a reasonable chance that this proposal will draw weaker objections than the counter proposal that was selected.

But that is ALL that such an action would be saying.  We don't ask people for objections to proposals or to rebut evidence which isn't even brought forward.  If we do reopen this issue, it would be with the intention that will give everybody adequate time to respond.

Meanwhile, we are asking these same individuals to focus on the open issues we need to resolve between now and last call:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/15


I will also note that there already are a number of issues that we have identified as last call issues:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/1


I think it would be a good idea to explicitly mention the above list in whatever announcements are made for last call.

> Thank you.
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby

> On 2/17/11, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> On 02/17/2011 03:33 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>> Hi Janina,
>>>
>>> Regrets for the meeting.
>>>
>>>> Issue-30 longdesc (any updates?)
>>>
>>> Some of us have been working on the change proposal [1]. Ideas for 
>>> improvement on that and on the use cases [2] that require longdesc 
>>> are still very welcome.
>>>
>>> I plan to submit the proposal to the HTML working group soon. Per 
>>> the Chairs' timeline [3], every issue needs to have at least one 
>>> Change Proposal by February 23. So on February 22, I plan to submit 
>>> the change proposal to reopen HTML-ISSUE-30.
>>>
>>> Hopefully that will allow enough time for the HTML Working Group to 
>>> evaluate the proposal, the reverse the decision, and instate 
>>> longdesc into the spec before Last Call.
>>
>> Based on what I have seen, I do believe that you have enough 
>> information to reopen the issue.  That being said it is my continued 
>> position[4][5] that all escalations after Jan 22 are to be treated as LC issues.
>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Laura
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

>>> [2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html#uc

>>> [3] 
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html

>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0052.html

>> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html

>>
>
>



Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 19:41:58 GMT

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