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

Re: Request to Revert revision 1.4525

From: E.J. Zufelt <everett@zufelt.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:06:19 -0400
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <34C5993C-F0ED-48DC-99DB-0139FCA106DA@zufelt.ca>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On 2010-10-28, at 4:00 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> 
>> Hi Maciej,
>>  
>> I think that warning is fine, except that it is visually emphasised, but not in the mark-up. suggest the most robust way to empahsise this information is to provide a heading for it.
>> Also the example points to a draft of the same spec, currently the HTML5 spec does not, I suggest that it be a stipulated  the link point to a draft version of the spec , preferably in W3C space, not to a spec that is HTML5 + other stuff.

Agreed, as a screen-reader user I * might * miss the warning if not emphasized with a heading.

> 
> I believe the warning being proposed here is that the W3C HTML5 Working Draft would have a warning box linking to the W3C HTML5 Editor's Draft, in much the same way as is done in the Navigation Timing WD.
> 
> That's as opposed to the current warning in the W3C HTML5 Editor's Draft that links to the WHATWG draft. I believe the Chairs stand by our request to remove that warning, and the greying out of all text in the draft.

I'm not certain what is meant by 'the greying out of all text in the draft', but let's make sure that the text that is greyed out is still perceivable as per WCAG 2.0 level AA (perhaps it already is).

Regards,
Everett



> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
>>  
>> regards
>> Stevef
>>  
>> On 28 October 2010 08:28, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ian, the chairs have determined that the following change is likely to
>> >> reduce rather than increase consensus, and therefore per our
>> >> agreement[1] are requesting a speedy revert of the following change
>> >> pending resolution of the "publishing problem":
>> >>
>> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-commits/2010Oct/0332.html
>> >
>> > Holy overreaction, batman. I'm just having some publication issues and
>> > didn't want people to be referencing an obsolete editor's draft in the
>> > meantime. It'll be fixed when it's fixed. I really don't think it's a good
>> > idea to have people referencing an obsolete draft in the meantime, though,
>> > especially since there's a perfectly adequate alternative available that
>> > I can point people to, so I've left it as-is for now
>> 
>> What are the publication issues that prevent updating the Editor's Draft? Perhaps the Chairs or Team Contacts can help if there are technical difficulties.
>> 
>> >
>> >> And furthermore, we are asking that if you have a list of issues that
>> >> you feel need to be resolved, you enumerate them either on this list or
>> >> as bug reports.
>> >
>> > Well since we're on the topic of obsolescence, I think we should have a
>> > warning on the TR/ page that this draft is perennially obsolete as well.
>> > It's causing lots of problems with people referencing old (and
>> > known-wrong, since-fixed) text [1]. I'd added such a warning to the draft
>> > before we last published but for some reason you removed it.
>> 
>> We previously discussed this privately, and the Chairs asked for the warning to be proposed on the mailing list before publishing a draft including it, to make sure it wouldn't be a source of drama or controversy, and that everyone agrees on the specific text. It's true that there are often other changes to the status section which we don't feel merit this level of review; however, we think it's part of our job to exercise our judgment to limit drama, and in this case it seemed wise to have a bit of discussion first.
>> 
>> Anyway, now that it has been brought up - what do you think of the warning box in the recently published Navigation Timing Working Draft:
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-navigation-timing-20101026/>?
>> 
>> How would others in the WG feel about a similar warning box in the status section of HTML WG drafts?
>> 
>> With chair hat off, I'll give my personal view - I think it would be beneficial, and I think the particular wording there is reasonable. In particular, I have seen myself some cases where there was miscommunication due to one person looking at a Working Draft and another at an Editor's Draft, and not realizing right away that there have been changes. I think it would be good to fix that, and it is reasonable and within W3C precedent.
>> 
>> I would also personally support a quick-turn publication round to add warning boxes along these lines to our published Working Drafts.
>> 
>> Would be glad to hear other views as well.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> with regards
>> 
>> Steve Faulkner
>> Technical Director - TPG Europe
>> Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
>>  
>> www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
>> Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
> 
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 08:06:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:20 UTC