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

Re: Second Call for Consensus--Reconfirm Longdesc Decision

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:26:43 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=GPcg1FZShGuQ1Y5yqWRJRKZukTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> Silvia, Laura, and All:
>
> I wonder if there's some misunderstanding? The "Second Call" that is the
> Subject in this thread is to confirm (or not) the resolutions from
> Monday's Text teleconference. Specifically ...
>
> Silvia Pfeiffer writes:
>> Hi Janina & Laura,
>>
>> I've read the change proposal and the suggested text change. I've
>> still got some (late) feedback, sorry.
>>
>> ===
>> I am very concerned about the suggested spec text as per
>> http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-spec-text2.html.
>
> That is not the proposal on agenda for Thursday. The URI cited in
> Monday's resolution, which is on the agenda for Thursday's call and a
> possible WBS is at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

Yes, and the spec text that is linked from that proposal is the link
that I quoted. So, it is indeed part of the proposal, and a major part
of it, too. As are all the other links that I gave. It's a proposal
that comes on multiple URLs so it's not easy to see that they all
belong together.


> It is, of course, fine to continue to develop and refine a proposal.
> Certainly, there was no expectation that no more tweaks would be made to
> the proposal considered by the Text Subteam. However, we cannot follow a
> complex consensus process while the proposal under consideration is
> being revised, even if the revisions being contemplated are believed to be no more than minor refinements.


OK, so while I in principle support the re-introduction of @longdesc
(and have also confirmed that in the other thread where we are asking
for people to vote), I don't actually agree with the exact text that
is to be patched into the spec. I may thus submit an alternative text
proposal when it goes to change request calls on the main list.


Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 01:27:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:38 GMT