- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:24:38 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, '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>
On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:59 PM, John Foliot wrote: >>> 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). [...] >>> >>> More importantly however, is to remove the author guidance that >>> today >>> explicitly contradicts existing, W3C approved Accessibility >>> Guidance as >>> written in WCAG 2. [...] >> I think it's reasonable for you to pursue these requests. Do you >> find the current Editor's Draft to be more objectionable on these >> points than the last published Working Draft? The previous working >> draft made summary="" entirely nonconforming, and contained >> accessibility advice on table descriptions contrary to WCAG2. I >> could understand holding publication if the Editor's Draft had >> gotten egregiously worse on some particular point, from your point >> of view. But I don't see the point of delaying publication if >> things are no worse (and arguably a bit better) than the last >> Working Draft. > > This is not a matter of delay. Ignoring other drafts that may not > be in consideration, there apparently will be two drafts ready by > sometime Monday-ish. If Ian is not predisposed to consider the > request that John has proposed and John has not withdrawn his > request, there will be a poll. Based on the results of that poll, > one or both drafts will be published. I think it would make sense to have a poll on publishing John's draft, once he has prepared one. I'm not sure it makes sense to plan to hold a poll on Monday, on publishing FPWD of a draft that does not exist as of today. However, John's requests are currently couched as requests to change Ian's draft before it can be published. And your poll option #4 seems to be phrased that way too (although as I pointed out, it's not entirely clear what that option calls for). I also note that you no longer seem to be applying your prior requirement for at least three independent contributors to Mike's draft or to John's possible future draft. Have you decided to set that rule aside? Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 02:25:19 UTC