W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Now sure how to respond to the ally TF response

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:53:52 -0500
Message-ID: <m2m643cc0271004201953tc7ee48d5q2e4762dc9b2def30@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
I would hope that it is within the scope of each Task Force to make
thoughtful proposals and reasoned recommendations, which I would
welcome.

I guess we wait for both.

Thanks

Shelley

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Shelley,
>
> You are correct that this resolution by the Task Force does not constitute a
> formal counter-proposal. We're still waiting for one or more
> counter-proposals to be submitted by the May 6th deadline. The Task Force
> resolution is a data point that counter-proposal authors or the WG as a
> whole could choose to use as input.
>
> For the record: the HTML WG Chairs did not specifically ask the
> Accessibility Task Force to render a formal recommendation on these issues.
> This is something that the A11Y TF did on their own initiative. But neither
> did we stop them when we heard they planned to give some input. Under the
>  HTML WG AccessibilityTask Force Work Statement, it is within the scope and
> responsibility of the Task Force to make proposals and recommendations to
> the Working Group.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>> I noticed the HTML Accessibility TF passed some form of resolution[1]
>> against several of my change proposals.
>>
>> I'm disappointed that the group didn't take an opportunity to review
>> each proposal independently, and disappointed that the HTML WG
>> co-chairs aided and encouraged the group in this action.
>>
>> I'm also surprised, because with at least three of these items, the
>> accessibility task force had no interest in either the bug or the
>> issue. At least, not until suddely they decided that they could not
>> live without these elements, after all. Even then, I don't
>> specifically know why, other than members of the group quoting
>> something from 2007.
>>
>> Some members of the accessibility task force group did question how
>> these issues were handled by the group. I appreciate those who comment
>> on the irregular handling.
>>
>> Now, I'm not sure how to respond to the group's actions. They're not
>> providing a counter-proposal. All the group is providing is an email
>> with the following paragraph:
>>
>> "RATIONALE: The F2F believes these elements are actually useful for
>> accessibility. We note that features similar to the elements in question
>> are today created using elements with different semantics actuated by
>> style and script, whereas we prefer native elements."
>>
>> By any stretch of the imagination, this isn't proper form. For being
>> determined to keep the elements, the group seems to have little to say
>> in their defense. Other than, "We like them. We want them. Built-in
>> elements, good."
>>
>> I'm still waiting for formal counter-proposals so I can respond with
>> final edits on my change proposals, including responses. I don't
>> consider this an effective counter-proposal. I guess I'll see if there
>> are any others by May 6th.
>>
>> My group membership agreement ends the 11th. I'm assuming I can still
>> make edits if need be after the 11th.
>>
>> Shelley
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0183.html
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0131.html
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 02:54:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:08 GMT