W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Text Subteam Minutes for 31 July

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:32:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpven85YAQrmfQ8kAfd-Va9RZifNoihqdX9ieaEfsN+9szA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Sam,

> The current status as I understand it is that the TF signed off on this in
> April:

The reinstate CP has been ready since May 2011. It has gained task
force consensus not once but twice [1] [2].

Now at the eleventh hour some want to wordsmith.

I have already told the text team that I would be great if people want
to expeditiously:

* Write a preamble for the Longdesc Change Proposal, or
* Write a comprehensive rebuttal document to Matt T's proposal, or
* Write a survey objection to the other proposal, or
* Provide more use cases, or
* Improve the requirements document.

I certainly can link them into the main Change Proposal, as I have
done with other documents, when requested to do so.

Last May the task force came to agreement on using an "executive
summary/readers digest" approach to the CP. So as everyone knows I
modularized the document. Now I have heard that some would like to
return to a longer style CP. I want to avoid spinning our wheels and
going in circles for no reason. I don't plan on making the main page
of the CP substantially longer again with extensive prose unless a.)
the new verbiage significantly strengthens the case to include
longdesc as a fully conforming attribute and b.) everyone agrees to
the verbiage and we have  consensus on the new text.

Judy, as you know I had to drop off yesterday's text call early. It
seems from reading the minutes that you are going to draft some text.
If so please do ASAP and send it to this list so everyone can can
discuss it.

People and organizations have been waiting for far, far, too long for
ISSUE-30 to be resolved. Let us not further delay needlessly.

Sam, you mentioned August 17 as a deadline. FYI...I have vacation that week.

Best Regards,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0180.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0003.html

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 04:19 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 07/31/2012 04:02 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>>> Hi Sam,
>>> Nope, Issue 30 was the main topic of discussion on the Text sub-team call
>>> today. The date is in reference to this:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0247.html
>> In that case, I really would like to hear more.
> The intent of this request to hear more was not to get a number of off-list
> replies.  Everybody should have an opportunity to participate in the
> discussion.  We can discuss it here.  We can also discuss it on the Thursday
> WG telecon.
> The current status as I understand it is that the TF signed off on this in
> April:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0003.html
> The authors of both proposals have indicated that they don't require any
> additional time to update their proposals:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0242.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0238.html
> The closest thing we have to a concrete statement we have at this point is
> that there is an expectation that there will be a desire to update the TF's
> position "regardless of which Issue 204 is adopted":
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0243.html
> - Sam Ruby

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 18:33:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:29 UTC