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

Preamble for Issue 30 CP (was Re: Text Subteam Minutes for 31 July)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:45:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpved3Le2FhQw8CvYeRS38QNsiGcsTpGtLbs4jfy86b3QaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Judy and all,

On August 1, I wrote to Judy:

> 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.

Judy, thank you for sharing your outline for a preamble for the
longdesc change proposal yesterday with me and other text team
members.

I look forward to your completed  draft, which hopefully will help
alleviate any misconceptions over Issues 204/30, clear the way for the
HTML survey, and set the stage for the rapid reinstatement of longdesc
in HTML.

Thank you for your work on this.

FYI...I will be offline from mid-afternoon today, Friday, and probably
all of the weekend. I would be available to link in your preamble to
the proposal next week if it is ready.

Best Regards,
Laura

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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,
> Laura
>
> [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
-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 17:45:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 August 2012 17:45:47 GMT