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

Issue-203 Update--We need a conditional CP

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:58:24 -0500
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120210185824.GA4978@sonata.rednote.net>
HTML-WG Chairs, John and All:

As per Task Force discussion during the 2 February teleconference:
http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-html-a11y-minutes.html#item07

I raised our Task Force concern regarding the inherent Issue-203 dependency on Issue-30 in the HTML-WG telecon. Discussion is logged at:
http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-html-wg-minutes.html

It was recommended that we file a CP on Issue-203 by the due date of 18
February,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0098.html

It was recommended this CP be written to note  that processing of Issue-203 should:

a.)	Await a decision on Issue-30 reconsideration.

b.)	Indicate that the long description mechanism that results from
Issue-30 reconsideration is incorporated into the Issue-203 proposal in
advance.

c.)	This procedure be explicitly validated by an email exchange with
HTML-WG Chairs.

The relevant excerpt from the above cited HTML-WG telecon minutes
follows:

<excerpt>
rubys: important that we get CP for these issues - if we don't get
proposals the issues will be deferred to html.next

janina: a11y tf thinks issue 203 should be considered after issue 30
 ... since one depends on the other
  ... you need both an alt text and a longdesc for the media element -
  this is separate from the poster that it may have
   ... we in good shape on the alt but not on the longdesc because we
   don't yet know which mechanism we will end up with for that

   rubys: are you suggesting the deadline moved after?

   janina: yes, to start after the longdesc question is resolved

   paulc: are you asking that we don't process 203 before 30 or that we
   delay calling change proposals

   <rubys>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0098.html

janina: delaying change proposals call because the only thing that could
be proposed is used longdesc or described by that we're+talking about in
30
 ... CP will be to apply that mechanism to the video tag

 paulc: could you write the CP saying using the solution from issue 30
  ... then all we have to make sure we don't come to a decision on 203
  before 30

  rubys: before the deadline?

  janina: yes
   ... if that kind of conditional proposal is acceptable then this is
   reasonable

   paulc: suggest that you get this into the CP and ask for explicit
   permission from chairs

</excerpt>

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 19:51:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:53 GMT