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

Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:20:42 -0700
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-id: <6D99EC7A-4D3D-4787-AECD-0FD09E34B9D4@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

Hi Sam,

On Aug 16, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

>
> Item #3 begs the question as to whether or not the current proposal  
> in Ian's Editor's Draft is the result of consensus.  It also  
> presumes that invalidating one spec by another is not best practice,  
> something that the current HTML5 draft does in a number of occasions.
>
> And the suggestions above (and by that, I mean the whole list: items  
> 1 through 5) would seem like a more credible proposal if you could  
> point to a consolidated place where the current differences between  
> the CG Consensus Resolution and the HTML Working Draft have followed  
> the above procedure.
>
> Steven Faulkner posted a resolution.  I will note the following  
> responses:
>
> 1) Ian Hickson[1][2]: "I don't understand"
> 2) Maciej Stachowiak [3][4][5]: "The material differences ... are"
> 3) Henri Sivonen [6]: "the following procedure should be followed"
>
> Between the three of you, nobody has provided any feedback on the  
> resolution itself.  Collectively, you are suggesting a burden of  
> proof that you are not ready, willing, and able to meet yourselves[7] 
> [8].

I'd like to give my feedback in the form of recommending changes to  
the current HTML5 draft to be more in line with this proposal.

To do that, I need to first understand clearly what the Resolutions  
document is asking for. And I want to help the supporters of this  
document understand which aspects are already satisfied by the HTML5  
draft. I believe I have demonstrated a capacity to expand  
understanding among people who disagree, given sufficient discussion.

I don't see how trying to better understand the document constitutes  
an unreasonable burden of proof. Nor do I see how it will help us  
achieve consensus for you to interfere with the process of mutual  
understanding. Would it be better if I just decided for myself what  
the document means, without asking for confirmation or clarification?

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 23:21:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT