W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Re-opening accessibility bugs

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 02:07:46 +0100
To: "lwatson@paciellogroup.com" <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: "rubys@intertwingly.net" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "mjs@apple.com" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Robin Berjon'" <robin@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xbyv28zey3oazb@chaals.local>
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:59:47 +0100, Paul Cotton  
<Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>> The resolution from the editors would be accepted and the bug closed.
>
>
> But would you change the component back?

I presume not. If the bug is closed, it isn't so important what component  
it is on except for historical trawling. Would you like that to be enabled  
- I doubt it takes a lot of effort to switch a component :)

cheers

>
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:lwatson@paciellogroup.com]Sent: Thursday,  
> February 27, 2014 1:58 PM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: rubys@intertwingly.net; mjs@apple.com; 'Robin Berjon';  
> public-html-admin@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'
> Subject: RE: Re-opening accessibility bugs
>
>
> Paul Cotton wrote:
>
> “What would happened if the TF decides to NOT reopen the bug?”
>
>
> The resolution from the editors would be accepted and the bug closed.
>
>
> Léonie.
>
> From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com]Sent: 27 February  
> 2014 18:30
> To: lwatson@paciellogroup.com
> Cc: rubys@intertwingly.net; mjs@apple.com; Robin Berjon (robin@w3.org);  
> public-html-admin@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'
> Subject: RE: Re-opening accessibility bugs
>
>
> + Robin to ensure he sees this thread
>
>
>> Once the information has been gathered though, we’d be in a position to  
>> move the bug over to 5.1 and continue the discussion during >the  
>> expected lifecycle of the spec.
>
>
> What would happened if the TF decides to NOT reopen the bug?
>
>
> /paulc
>
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:lwatson@paciellogroup.com]Sent: Thursday,  
> February 27, 2014 1:23 PM
> To: Paul Cotton; rubys@intertwingly.net; mjs@apple.com;  
> public-html-admin@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'
> Subject: Re-opening accessibility bugs
>
>
> Sam, Maciej & Paul,
>
>
> The HTML A11y TF has been processing bugs that were filed against the  
> 5.0 spec, and which were subsequently marked resolved  
> >needsInfo/wontFix. We’ve come across a handful that we believe are  
> still relevant, and would welcome your help in agreeing the best >way to  
> take things forward.
>
>
> We’re talking about perhaps a dozen bugs. We still have more to process,  
> but based on our experiences to date we don’t anticipate >that this  
> number will rise too dramatically.
>
>
> We don’t want to hold up the current CR, and don’t believe that any of  
> the bugs we’ve identified so far warrant being re-opened against >5.0 in  
> any case. We would like to re-open them against 5.1, but also realise  
> that the onus is on the TF to provide the additional >information  
> requested, or to provide reasonable grounds for re-opening those marked  
> wontFix.
>
> There was some discussion about the best approach to take on the TF call  
> today:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-minutes.html
>
>
> One proposal is for the TF to move the bugs in question to the HTML A11y  
> TF component in bugzilla. This would clear them from each >of the legacy  
> components they’re currently logged against (Pre-LC1, LC1 etc.), but  
> without moving them into the 5.1 component before >it would be  
> appropriate to do so.
>
>
> We don’t want to push these bugs back to the editors until we can  
> provide some tangible information for them to consider. Once the  
> >information has been gathered though, we’d be in a position to move the  
> bug over to 5.1 and continue the discussion during the >expected  
> lifecycle of the spec.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your input on this.
>
>
> Léonie.
> The Paciello Group.
> The Paciello Group.



-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 28 February 2014 01:08:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:37 UTC