W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Is longdesc a good solution?

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:15:01 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80809061215q13b449n49c0d99b6cfdf1fd@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Geoffrey Sneddon" <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Cc: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html Group" <public-html@w3.org>

dear jeffrey,

I don't know what prompted your foray, but it appears somewhat
misguided, laura was merely defending herself in response to lachlan's
hissy fit "more excuses to avoid doing real work" by listing the HTML
WG activities she undertakes. She was not claiming to be doing more or
less than than others.

Just because you do not perceive value in attending teleconferences,
this does not mean that it is not a worthwhile part of the WG process.

As the focus of Laura's work in the HTML WG is accessibility related,
it is natural that she would seek advice from the PF as the focus of
the skills and experience of those such as the editor is not
accessibility related, and it shows.

While the WG does not have to take heed of PF advice, it would appear
to be short sighted not to do so. It will also mean that the spec will
be held up as formal objections are raised if the spec fails to
satisfy accessibility deliverables.

>  On 26 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>
> > But the whole point is here that I haven't "decided" yet either. I haven't
> > even carefully looked at the feedback yet.
> >

As I have said previously, the editor doesn't get to decide, he can
put forward suggestions, if there is a lack of consensus on one of his
suggestions the chairs will decide. That is the way it works in the
HTML WG, if it isn't please disabuse me.

Which brings us back to the teleconferences, which are where issues
that are of substance, but do not have consensus support within the
HTML WG are discussed.

btw
i use skype for the calls it costs practically nothing.

--
stevef

On 06/09/2008, Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>  CC: - wai-xtech@w3.org (this isn't relevant for them at all)
>
>
>  On 6 Sep 2008, at 13:22, Laura Carlson wrote:
>
>
> > - Attending teleconferences
> >
>
>  Per our charter technical discussion primarily happens on public-html. Why
> should I spend my money attending a teleconference?
>
>
> > - Participating in discussions on list and at teleconferences
> >
>
>  OK, fair enough.
>
>
> > - Defining and tracking issues
> > - Gathering information
> > - Providing rationale
> >
>
>  As far as I can see more or less everyone has been doing all three of
> these.
>
>
> > - Seeking PF's advice
> >
>
>  It seems sane to have one or two people acting as links between WGs, but we
> aren't chartered to blindingly follow their advice. We do not have to follow
> it, even if you'd like us to.
>
>
> > - Researching and testing
> > - Fulfilling actions
> > - Posting results to the list
> >
>
>  And again, everyone has been doing this…
>
>  There is no clear consensus either way.  I have not seen the editor
> actually make a decision, nor write either side off.
>
>  On 26 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>
> > But the whole point is here that I haven't "decided" yet either. I haven't
> > even carefully looked at the feedback yet.
> >
>
>
>  --
>  Geoffrey Sneddon
>  <http://gsnedders.com/>
>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Saturday, 6 September 2008 19:15:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:23 GMT