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: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:27:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4A88BFFE.3020709@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
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>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On Aug 16, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see how trying to better understand the document constitutes 
>>> an unreasonable burden of proof.
>>
>> No, but asking for people to justify[1] changes to a spec that has not 
>> yet been determined to represent consensus does.
> 
> In a disagreement, everyone should be asked to justify their position. 

Agreed.

> As I pointed out, the current spec text was given detailed 
> justification[1] based on a great deal of often conflicting feedback.

Do you believe that justification specifically addresses the three 
points of differences you identified between Ian's and Steven's documents?

> I 
> don't see what consensus has to do with anything.The lack of declared 
> consensus does not make it any less appropriate to expect people to 
> explain their positions.

I was simply reacting to the fact that you were only asking one side to 
document their rationale.  If Ian's previous answers anticipated and 
already addressed the specific points of differences, then I apologize. 
  Otherwise, I respectfully submit that everyone should be asked to 
justify their position.

> The way past superficial disagreement is to understand what people 
> actually want and why.

If applied equally, then I have no quarrel.

> Let me give you a concrete example. The Consensus Resolutions document 
> says alt should always be included, and doesn't allow the alternatives 
> of @title and single-image section heading that the HTML5 spec allows in 
> a few cases. On the other hand, it does allow <figure><legend> and 
> aria-labeledby as alternatives. Is the Consensus Resolutions document 
> recommending that the other HTML5 alternatives should be removed? Or is 
> its list of techniques not meant to be exhaustive, and therefore these 
> other alternatives are ok? I don't think I can tell without asking. Can 
> you? 
> 
> I hope you can see why this kind of understanding is important to 
> building conensus.

I have no problem with that question.  Only to the lack of response to 
Steven's request, and the subsequent request that he justify his position.

>>> Nor do I see how it will help us achieve consensus for you to 
>>> interfere with the process of mutual understanding.
>>
>> I don't see how asking people to provide the feedback requested is 
>> "interfering".  And at this time, I would like to thank Henri for 
>> actually doing so[2].
> 
> This document makes suggestions for changes to the HTML5 draft. Rather 
> than suggesting changes to the suggestions for changes, I'd like to 
> determine if we can actually apply the changes to the draft. This is not 
> exactly what was requested, but I believe it is useful and would in fact 
> save us time.

That would indeed be useful.

> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0723.html

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 02:28:12 UTC

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