W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > October 2014

Re: clarification sought on publishing alt text document as a WG note

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 10:05:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkM_FRzVmX=4o8hfwVwzzg=7evo=b3qPbmvoABtoDj8kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le H├ęgaret <plh@w3.org>
HI Janina

On 8 October 2014 20:57, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Hi, Steve:
> Steven Faulkner writes:
> > For future reference and in attempting to better understand how the
> process
> > works, can I please get an explanation of how a document[3] that it was
> > agreed by consensus at the start of June 2014 by the HTML WG [1] and the
> > HTML accessibility taskforce [2] was not published.
> I can understand your frustration. Completing this document as a W3C
> note seemed a pro forma task back in June to, I think, all of us. The
> approvals you note were indeed obtained. However, issues arose during
> the PF CfC, and things have devolved from there.

I can find the email to the PF about the tasforce resolution:

I cannot find any negative comments to the CFC / objections (apart from the
one you cited, but cannot find the source)  I note the objection you cite
is in regards to the HTML5 spec not the alt doc.

> > The work to be done to
> > publish this document as a note was/is mechanical and trivial, yet in Oct
> > 2014 it has still not been published, and it has now appears to have been
> > decided that the document's publication will not occur until unknown,
> > possibly substantive changes have been made.
> >
> Yes, the early issues raised could be called "mechanical," as you say.
> However, I would not agree that lack of a correctly formatted masthead
> with copyright, abstract, and status section is trivial. These really
> should all be in place when a CfC is conducted, as objections against
> the language here are also grounds for bugs.

The effort required to add boilerplate is trivial, not what the text
contains. I have been editing various specs for a while now and from my
understanding  these sort of additions take minutes or hours rather than

> We could say that we were
> somewhat sloppy about the document proposed for consideration in the
> CfCs, though I think most of us were willing to overlook that.

I did not see any objections to it.

> In the past few weeks additional concerns have arisen and I would say it
> is indeed likely that substantive changes will be sought. There are
> already bugs filed against the current draft, and additional bugs are
> expected.

> > What exactly does the HTML WG CFC process mean if decisions made via such
> > process are delayed for months then set aside without recourse to the
> group?
> >

> The process did not fail. You've simply forgotten the PF componant in
> the process. Without it, the HTML-WG cannot proceed.

I admit that I am sometimes at a loss in the multiple layers of process,
but the 'PF component' appears ambiguous at best,  I would like to better
understand how the PF component held up the publication of the HTML5
techniques alt doc, when there were no (cited) objections to it from the
PF, but not the pending publication of HTML5.

I appreciate and abide by process, but am flummoxed by the apparent
inconsistency in which it is applied.

I regret the delay, but this is an important topic in web accessibility.
> Three-four years from now, I believe it will prove more important that
> we paused to get things right. By then all this delay will have been
> forgotten.

Pausing to get things right implies that once published as a note, the doc
will be set in stone, whereas I thought it was previously agreed that the
note would be updated as needed.

As I stated to the task force list last week, I have stepped down as
editor, as I effectively stopped work on the document in June, after 4
years, when it was (I thought) agreed by consensus that the document would
be published. I will of course provide feedback on changes when CFC's are
issued for eventual publication. Note I continue to edit substantially the
same material in the HTML 5.1 specification [1], so any feedback on that is

> PS: This is pretty much a standing agendum on the TF call. As always, you
> are
> welcome to discuss this with the TF there.

I appreciate that, and do attend when I am able to, but paid work
commitments often intervene. Asynchronous decision making and communication
generally works better for me, but I will be at TPAC and am happy to
discuss there.

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#alt



> Janina
> >
> > [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jun/0055.html
> > [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jun/0019.html
> > [3] http://rawgit.com/w3c/alt-techniques/master/index.html
> > [4]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Oct/0005.html
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > SteveF
> > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
> --
> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>                         sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>                 Email:  janina@rednote.net
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,  Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>         Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 09:07:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:36 UTC