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

Re: My final attempt on explanation (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:17:16 +0000 (UTC)
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908032202190.18950@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, John Foliot wrote:
>
> "What I've argued, from the beginning, is that in the section "12.1 
> Obsolete" content creators are told specifically *NOT* to use @summary. 
> This directly contradicts WCAG 2 guidance in this matter."

Contradiction other W3C documents isn't a problem. New documents 
contradict older documents as the cutting edge moves along and new 
information comes to light. That's how progress is made.


> About W3C Process

I didn't want to be the one to have to explain this to you, but nobody 
else is doing so, so here goes: The W3C process doesn't actually require 
that working groups agree, or not contradict each other. The WAI's mission 
is not binding on other working groups. The HTMLWG charter actually says 
that I am expected to write proposals and put them forward in drafts 
exactly as I have been doing.


> So last Friday, I set into motion an illustration of why the WHAT WG 
> process is flawed - using WHAT WG rules.  As an alternative Editor, I 
> invoked 'benevolent dictator' status and made a minor change to an 
> existing document that is clearly licensed to allow me to do so. I then 
> submitted that alternative Draft to the Working Group Chairs for 
> consideration as the next Working Draft.

As far as I can tell, that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I 
certainly support your ability to write such drafts and publish them. To 
be honest I don't understand why your draft hasn't been published.


> As well, throughout this entire exercise, I have provided thousands upon 
> thousands of words of explanation, justification and interpretation of 
> "my data set", data that I have used to reach the positions and 
> conclusions that I have reached.

This data boils down to "The WCAG2 documents say so", right? As mentioned 
above, I don't consider contradicting WCAG2 to be a problem either 
technically, socially, or by W3C process. That's how we make progress, 
which I'm sure you'll agree is desperately needed if we're to make the Web 
more accesible -- it's not like it's a paragon of accessibility today.

(If there is other data I have missed, please provide pointers to the 
relevant e-mails.)


Regarding the WHATWG, I don't think the WHATWG is relevant to the internal 
operations of the W3C HTML WG, and I don't think that any WHATWG rules are 
affecting the HTML WG. The way that I am editing the spec is within the 
expectations set out by our charter, as far as I can tell.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 22:17:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC