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

Accessibility Procedure (was Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:03:34 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0908130203w31b64230p90e01409ad1c72d7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Manu,

You wrote [1]

> We cannot, however, willfully break other specifications without there
> being blowback. For example, here's what I'm asserting happened with
> @summary:
> 1. Gather some data and report the @summary issue to WAI/PFWG.
> 2. WAI/PFWG does not respond satisfactorily, for whatever reason.
> 3. Break the WAI/PFWG guidance by authoring normative language into
> the HTML5 spec.
> 4. Disaster.

It pretty much started out as a disaster. HTML 4 accessibility
features were not in HTML 5 from the start. It was a communication
failure from the beginning.

Upon reading the spec in May 2007, Roger asked this working group for
rationale for removing the summary and headers attributes from tables:

That was argued over in this working group ever since then.

NOTHING was reported to PF until June 26, 2008, when Josh, Gregory,
Steve, and I brought the fact that HTML 5 had no summary attribute to
PF's attention and asked for advice.

August 6, 2008, PFWG responded:

May 4, 2009, I asked again for PF advice:

June 3, 2009, PF Response

Further history and details are in the Wiki:

> Here's what I'm asserting should have happened with @summary:
> 1. Gather some data and report the @summary issue to WAI/PFWG.
> 2. WAI/PFWG does not respond satisfactorily, for whatever reason.
> 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until WAI/PFWG responds satisfactorily, OR
> 4. Propose alternatives that could replace @summary that meet
> WAI/PFWG's   requirements. Author preliminary language into the HTML5
>   specification and note that the solution does not enjoy consensus
>   and is controversial.

This sounds similar the Collaboration Framework in the Accessibility
procedure proposal.[2] The procedure also has a task force as a
component in the Collaboration Tools section. So I am pleased to see
the new task force proposal.

Best Regards,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0553.html
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityIssueProcedure
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 09:04:10 UTC

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