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 15:14:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4A8314A7.4010002@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:
> Hi Sam,
> 
>> 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.
> 
> longdesc is currently a "raised" not  an "open", not  a "pending
> review" not a "postponed" issue.
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30
> 
> The definition of a raised [1] issue does not require an action.
> 
> 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.
> 
> The definition of closed [1] is:
> 
> 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 spec editing) or the issue has been withdrawn.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.

<grin>

I actually believe I authored those words, but I am having difficulty 
proving it given that the history of those pages seem to have, um, 
overflowed.

At the present time my goal is to move the number of issues in the 
raised status towards zero.  That goal is a bit, um, optimistic for new 
issues, but in this case we are talking about an issue that has been 
raised for over 18 months.  I don't believe it to be out of order to ask 
who has the ball and what are their plans.

> Has the WG has resolved the issue (via spec editing) or  has the issue
> has been withdrawn?

I did not suggest such.  I am suggesting that we try to move the issue 
from RAISED to OPEN, not RAISED to CLOSED.

> We reviewed and edited the Tracker definitions a year ago:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/70
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20080717#l-310
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2008JulSep/0017.html

And I believe I reviewed and edited the Tracker definitions earlier this 
year, though at this point I suspect that you will be able to find the 
my discussion on this matter and the actual changes I made faster than I 
can.

>> For my part, I'm doing everything humanly possible to get Ian the answers
>> he needs to continue to make progress.
> 
> Thank you. Much appreciated.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Laura
> 
> [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/#head-47c0b55d661dcf93f76d586ddbe292c9abc597e4

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 19:15:33 UTC

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