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 22:17:29 -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: <B66D50E6-4A0C-4381-959C-54360E32D3D7@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Aug 16, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

>
> b) WAI must justify any each and every change to what Ian has  
> written (I don't think this is an unfair interpretation of what you  
> wrote[2], but for reference the original version was: "what changes  
> if any are suggested to the spec for each of these, and what WAI's  
> justifications are")

I think it is an unfair interpretation of what I wrote. Here are some  
complete sentences from the email you cited, and I invite you to  
reread them in light of what I said my goals are:

"I'd also like to determine what changes if any are suggested to the  
spec for each of these, and what WAI's justifications are."
"So what I'd like to understand whether (2), (6) and (7) are meant to  
be change requests, and if so, their justification and relative  
importance."
"I'm trying to break things down like this to make sure we are all  
communicating clearly."

Notice that none of this is presented as a demand for WAI. It was  
presented as my own goal to gather information to facilitate  
understanding, and an implied request for help. Please don't take half  
a sentence out of context to try to make your point.


If you took it the other way, then I apologize for being unclear, but  
I also wish you'd asked for clarification before shooting me down. I  
hope Steve took my remarks in this spirit in which they were intended.


>
>>>> 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.
>> If the points of difference are clarified, and Ian disagrees, I  
>> will expect him to justify his position, and will ask him to do so  
>> if necessary. On the ARIA points, I believe he has already agreed.
>
> On the ARIA points, I believe that we have an agreement in  
> principle, onee that is sufficient for Ian to make progress.  In  
> fact, I believe that there is nothing stopping him now from making  
> the matrix that we discussed, but Ian is not in any rush as he  
> doesn't believe that it is a problem that ARIA isn't in HTML5's last  
> call, something he recently reiterated.[3]  And based on what I see  
> in IRC, given that an edit is required, it is clear that what Ian is  
> waiting on is not an answer to his email, but on a complete new  
> editor's draft[4][5].  I wish we had had this information on Thursday.

Once we have an actual agreement in principle on the record, then I  
think it would be unreasonable to demand exact ARIA spec text before  
changing the HTML5 draft.

On the other hand, some have already been shown private ARIA Editor's  
Drafts which reflect some of the desired changes (but asked not to  
share them further). I do not think it would be an undue burden to  
show an ARIA Editor's Draft to Ian. Let's see if it is a burden once  
we get to that point.

As for whether we have an agreement in principle: I believe that we do  
not have one yet. First, the PFWG reps on the call were very clear  
that the ideas they described on host language semantics and ARIA were  
tentative. I believe all agreed that PFWG should put their thoughts on  
the record in email as the next step. Second, the PFWG reps on the  
call agreed that the comments about the role attribute were  
interesting, but did not state a position on whether ARIA would be  
changed to reflect them, though they did agree to take these comments  
back to PFWG. I believe once these two points are addressed, then we  
will in fact have an agreement in principle. Does your recollection  
differ from mine?

To me, Ian's personal opinion on ARIA and its relative importance is  
irrelevant. It is clear to me that it's critical for Last Call, and  
I'd like to see what we can do to make timely progress. If Ian is not  
especially helpful to making progress in this area, then I am not  
going to let that stop me.

You are right that Ian could do some preliminary work on ARIA  
integration in the absence of ARIA spec text or even a full agreement  
in principle. If PFWG folks feel this is blocking an agreement in  
principle on the record, I would encourage him to do it sooner rather  
than later. I am currently more concerned about the O(days) action  
than the O(weeks) action. It is probably also true that if Ian had a  
great deal of personal enthusiasm for ARIA, then he'd probably just do  
the HTML5 spec work and let it conflict with the current ARIA draft.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 05:18:12 GMT

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