W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:06:31 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinVeB7SGCwFiDj2qNA==soSng9e=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> *** Decision of the Working Group ***
>
> Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the "The existing
> DrawFocusRing text does not provide any guidance to user agent
> manufacturers as to how to use the necessary information to support
> accessibility API services." Change Proposal for ISSUE-131, with two
> exceptions.
>
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0682.html
>
> The two exceptions are:
>
>  * The change to remove the canDrawCustom parameter from drawFocusRing
>   is not adopted.
>
>  * The change to add baseline to the TextMetric interface is not
>   adopted.
>
> Of the Change Proposals before us, this proposal, with the noted
> exceptions, has drawn the weaker objections.

I'm confused about this decision from a process perspective.  This
decision adopts something that wasn't expressed in any of the Change
Proposals - it's one of the CPs, minus some exceptions.

In other Decisions, though, similar attempts to provide improved
suggestions in the comments (somebody objects to a CP as written, but
wouldn't object if certain changes were made) have been rejected with
the reason that the decision is purposely limited to choosing between
the submitted change proposals.

What's the criteria for the decision being limited only to submitted
CPs versus allowing some leeway in synthesizing a decision different
from any of the submitted CPs?

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 00:07:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:27 GMT