W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'Michael\(tm\) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <lhs@malform.no>
Message-ID: <01aa01ca1243$61ff23a0$25fd6ae0$@edu>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> Perhaps the intent was that #4 gives a precondition to publication. In
> that case, is the precondition giving instructions to Mike Smith, or
> does Mike Smith have to be successful in getting John Foliot's not-yet-
> written text into Ian's draft to satisfy the precondition? It seems
> like the latter option could lead to indefinite delay in publication.

Let's be perfectly clear here.  I have made 2 requests for moving forward
that should be trivial to deliver, and given the great sense of urgency
that is emerging (??) I guess I will be making the Draft suggestions this
evening - I had hoped to have the weekend to approach this but apparently
that might not be the case.

My 2 requests are simple:

Indicate in the current Working Draft that the ultimate fate of @summary
is an open issue (as opposed to a conformant but obsolete attribute, which
nobody has agreed to yet).  My preference would be to restore this
attribute to its current HTML 4/XHTML 1 status, but I can live with it
simply being an unanswered question at this time with *no* status outside
of open and in "limbo", as at least that is accurate and truthful. (JF
wonders if Henri's validator can handle that state?)

More importantly however, is to remove the author guidance that today
explicitly contradicts existing, W3C approved Accessibility Guidance as
written in WCAG 2.  (As a matter of personal opinion, as well as apparent
W3C Policy, all such Accessibility Guidance should be coming from the WAI
group, and *NOT* the HTML WG - it does not belong in the "...vocabulary
and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML" which is supposed to be a
technical document, and not a policy guideline document.)

This is not a major fork or branch, nor an issue of technical superiority
of one method versus another, it is a question of W3C Process,
acknowledgement of appropriate ownership and responsibility, and
correcting a contradiction that should not exist between 2 W3C documents,
one that is stable and one that is a Working Draft. The only way that this
might introduce a delay is if Ian refuses to remove his opinionated
guidance here, contrary to published W3C mandates and protocols.

Should Ian refuse, then I will post a fully replicated copy of the draft
document that Sam has instructed me to use as a working template.  I will
be functionally identical to the existing WHAT WG draft except for these
two minor changes - if that is how the chairs and Working Group wish to
proceed then that's fine by me.

(Off to download Sam's template file now...)

JF
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 01:00:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 1 October 2014 21:47:35 UTC