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

Re: closing issue-30 longdesc in favor of aria-describedby [was: Consolidated issues ...]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:20:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4A830800.3000805@intertwingly.net>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Laura Carlson wrote:
> Maciej wrote [1]:
>> Based on what Henri says[2], I instead suggest closing ISSUE-30, (longdesc)
>> unless someone objects.
> Dan wrote [3]:
>> Works for me.
> Has Chaals withdrawn the longdesc issue that he originally[4] raised [5]?
> Has aria-describedby been incorporated into HTML5 as WAI CG recommended [6]?
> That doesn't seem to be the case as Ian wrote [6]:
> <Hixie> well then aria won't make LC
> <Hixie> we can always do it after LC
> Shelley wrote [8]:
>> Until ARIA is, in fact, integrated, I would suggest leaving this item in.
> Leif wrote [9]:
>> Hence I suggest not closing ISSUE-30 at this moment.
> If aria-describedby has not been incorporated as WAI CG recommended,
> no functional replacement exists for longdesc, then I agree with
> Shelley and Leif. The issue should not be closed [5].

In all cases, the sentence that follows "The issue should not be closed" 
should to identify (a) what is the next action, (b) who is the owner of 
that action, and (c) when that action is targeted to be complete.

For my part, I'm doing everything humanly possible to get Ian the 
answers he needs to continue to make progress.

> Best Regards,
> Laura
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0577.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0579.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0600.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0065.html
> [5] Issue Definitions:
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/#head-edc2d90c3b34d500456e7e167ab59ce3a43c7ffc
>> RAISED = A working group member suggests this is worth a WG
>> discussion and potentially a decision, but to date no concrete
>> proposal has been created that enjoys a consensus of at least one.
>> OPEN = At least one concrete proposal has been made resolving this
>> issue, but one on which consensus has either not been evaluated, or
>> has not yet been reached; a working group member is assigned an
>> ACTION to follow up (similar to ASSIGNED).
>> PENDINGREVIEW = An Editor has reviewed arguments and edited spec to
>> taste, or the WG chairs have evaluated the level of consensus and
>> identified one or more proposals that would resolve the issue. In the
>> case where multiple proposals are identified, the Editors may make
>> the determination as to which one to incorporate.
>> POSTPONED = The WG has decided the issue will not be addressed at
>> this time due to engineering constraints, cost-effectiveness, or the
>> inability of the issue to be address in the time defined by our
>> charter. To be investigated during the next chartering period.
>> CLOSED = The chairs believe either the WG has resolved the issue (via
>> spec editing) or the issue has been withdrawn. Only the chairs should
>> move issues to 'closed'. Typically moving issues from PENDINGREVIEW
>> to CLOSED will involve review in the weekly telecon.
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
> [7] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090811#l-285
> [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0586.html
> [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0584.html
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 18:21:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC