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: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:14:56 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=MOgH5E+U1ZCiZBLZzpbuRUOtP7qEN2iByPpQF@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Sam,

In September you advised me,

"My recommendation: take your time.  Build your case.  Most of all, do
not assume that you will get multiple opportunities to do this."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0493.html

I took that to heart and have been trying to heed your advice.

What was unclear in the "Timeline to Last Call" is that, the phrase
"Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration"
actually meant that January 22, 2010  was the deadline for all other
situations. Issue 30 didn't even have a bug so I did not consider that
date pertained to Issue 30.

My focus was on:

"Feb 23, 2011 - every issue has at least one Change Proposal
Consequences of missing this date: issues will be closed without
prejudice and marked POSTPONED; can be reconsidered during LC or for a
later version of HTML."

If I had known January 22 was the deadline to submit a Proposal for
Issue 30, I would certainly would have met it. But I didn't know that.
I was taking my time.  Building my case.

Best Regards,
Laura

On 2/17/11, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:15:29 GMT

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