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

Re: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:36:00 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTimpvHFnhMg9CCV1AXeSZUENxYrZDgVmC4Eds4V0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
> I have responded to this item.  See:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Feb/0064.html

Thank you, Paul.

Laura

On 2/24/11, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have responded to this item.  See:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Feb/0064.html
>
> /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 Laura Carlson
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:31 PM
> To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
> Cc: Janina Sajka; Judy Brewer
> Subject: Fwd: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG
>
> For your information:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Feb/0063.html
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:27:00 -0800
> Subject: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG
> To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby
> <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
> Cc: www-archive@w3.org
>
> Hi,
>
> What criteria will be used to determine the "newness" of information when
> considering reopening issues in the HTML WG? Allowing the elaboration of
> information that, in truncated form, was available to the working group at
> the time the original decision was made doesn't strike me as a high enough
> bar.
>
> In many cases, when the working group's escalation and decision process has
> been fully exercised and a decision rendered, the issue in question was
> contentious and divisive. If it isn't clear to the working group that
> substantive new information is available *that would have caused some
> participants to see things differently when the issue was first decided*, I
> think the presumption should be that such issues don't get reopened.
>
> I'd like to see something like Sam's "three or more independent and
> established participants" rule for reopening issues due to new information.
> If we can't find three or more independent and established participants who
> can say "I would have gone the other way on this issue, had I known then
> what I know now," we shouldn't reopen the issue.
>
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Ted
>
> --
> Edward O'Connor
> eoconnor@apple.com
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 20:38:47 GMT

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