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: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:51:03 -0400
Message-ID: <4A8AEA07.8070207@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:
> 
> 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?

What I want to do is to break the logjam of "I won't respond until the 
other side puts their thoughts on the record".  I would like us to 
proceed based on the premise of an agreement in principle, even if it is 
subject to change.

The following is draft thoughts, subject to change, and we have the 
ability to influence these thoughts:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0962.html

My recollection was that you thought this was sufficient, and upon 
reading Michael's post, I found nothing that surprised me.  But I am not 
as close to the problem as you are, let me know if you read this 
differently.

More immediately, the status of issue-35 (aria-processing) is open. 
Cynthia Shelly had action 114 to get the PF working group to report 
progress.  Unless I hear differently, I am going to assume that that 
action is complete, and therefore want to know what the next action is, 
who owns that action, and when it is due.

Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue, a 
reasonable next step is for somebody to draft a matrix of potential 
combinations[1].  Even if some (or even many) of the squares in the 
matrix are wrong, the exercise will be useful in that that should spark 
useful discussion.

As far as I can see, the options are:

1) Proceed to last call without ARIA with the intention of adding ARIA 
in after last call.  I don't know what others think, but don't think 
this meets the spirit of Last Call.

2) As this is in the critical path, re-prioritze workload to get the 
right people looking into this issue, with the hopes of pull back in the 
Last Call date.

3) Move out last call.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://tinyurl.com/qb94po
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 17:51:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC