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

Re: Request to re-open issue 131

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:31:27 -0500
Message-ID: <4EE8EB7F.7030407@intertwingly.net>
To: david bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>
CC: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, chuck@jumis.com, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, dbolter@mozilla.com, franko@microsoft.com, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 12/14/2011 10:10 AM, david bolter wrote:
> Hi Sam, all,
>
> (Is top posting ok?)
>
> Can someone please provide links to the various and most recent proposals?

The following does not have any rationale provided, but you are welcome 
to comment on it:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/

Additionally, we have the following:

   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/CaretSelection
   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/FocusRingTextBaseline

> Unfortunately I get confused following the canvas accessibility churn. I
> can share that the current plan as I understand it is to make sure the
> child dom of canvas is exposed correctly in Firefox, but this hasn't
> turned out to be our highest priority accessibility work this quarter.
> Taking this one step at a time is roughly the plan and adding canvas
> accessibility support specific to text is not something we've committed
> to or not yet, to my knowledge (and I don't see how we could make a
> statement on this). Personally, I really like to have patches in hand
> before committing ;)
>
> I think the successes of ARIA (much props to Rich) happened because we
> were implementing in parallel.
>
> At Mozilla there are certainly voices for avoiding any kind of
> encouragement of canvas-for-text-app usage.

It would be helpful if those voices were to participate here, on 
public-html.

> That said, in what Rich has
> communicated to me, he has seemed to me to be asking for a reasonable
> bare minimum, but again, I would like to make sure we share the same
> links to what we're discussing.

It would also be helpful to enumerate any strong objections to the 
completed and incomplete proposals identified at the top of this email.

> Cheers,
> David

- Sam Ruby

> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 12/13/2011 06:17 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
>         Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
>         <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote on 12/09/2011 09:25:14 PM:
>
>          > From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
>         <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>>
>          > To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS__,
>
>          > Date: 12/09/2011 09:25 PM
>          > Subject: Re: Request to re-open issue 131
>          >
>          > On 12/09/2011 05:42 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>          > > I see Ian replaced the entire Canvas 2D API spec. without a
>         formalproposal:
>          > >
>          > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/__2dcontext/
>         <http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/>
>          >
>          > Should a formal proposal not be forthcoming, and should you
>         be able to
>          > obtain testimonials from at least two major implementors that
>         that they
>          > would be willing to implement your proposal should it be
>         adopted, then
>          > you have nothing to worry about. If you need to modify your
>         Change
>          > Proposal(s) in order to obtain these testimonials, you have the
>          > opportunity to do so. We've not established a deadline yet
>         for this,
>          > but the earliest deadline we would impose would be late
>         January by this
>          > point. It could possibly even be later.
>          >
>         1. We are not in Candidate Recommendation phase. No such W3C process
>         requires implementations before CR.
>
>
>     First I will state that I understand the frustration.
>
>     At CR we will looking for compatible implementations of the spec.
>
>     What we are looking for now is something different than that.
>
>     We have statements by individuals purporting to represent
>     implementations that they WILL NOT implement the W3C specification.
>     Those statements, if true, would represent very strong objections.
>
>     To date, those people have declined to provide new information.
>       They have declined to provide a new change proposal.  That's the
>     problem I intend to focus on.
>
>
>         2. Microsoft, IBM, and Mozilla were presenting a canvas
>         accessibility
>         workshop for SXSW targeted for early March where we would be doing
>         implementations. By breaking process the HTML working group chairs
>         effectively broke the ability to implement the specification as you
>         removed all the caret and selection processing.
>
>         We already made a proposal which the chairs voted on and the chairs
>         allowed a proposal that has no implementation to come in and
>         override
>         it. No browser manufacturer has implemented the new focus ring
>         APIs in
>         the edited spec. For example, Webkit does not even have fallback
>         content
>         in it yet so indicating where the focus ring is in fallback
>         content on
>         an accessible is a very long way off right now.
>
>         3. Chrome follows the Firefox implementation for accessibility.
>         I know
>         this as I work with both browser manufacturers.
>
>
>     Can we get a simple statement from Mozilla?  All it needs to state
>     is that they intend to implement whatever the 2D Canvas API might
>     contain for a focus ring API in the W3C spec?  We are not looking
>     for a commitment as to timeframes.  We are simply looking for a
>     statement of intent at this point.
>
>
>         So, what the chairs have done is responded by heresy by perhaps one
>         chair from Apple.
>
>
>     I encourage you to read the Discussion Guidlines:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/__wiki/DiscussionGuidelines
>     <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines>
>
>     While the remainder of your email was professional, I will state
>     that the above sentence crossed the line.
>
>
>         This is why W3C has a process and why companies like IBM
>         participate in
>         standards efforts. The process is designed to take input from all
>         participating members and provides adequate time to allow members to
>         implement the specification. Not only did the chairs break
>         process but
>         they also hindered implementations under way.
>
>         4. Caret and selection processing was removed. These were critical
>         features that drive magnifiers for low vision users. There is
>         nothing in
>         Ian's change that supports those use cases which the chairs
>         approved.
>         Now, perhaps Ian preferred a better API but no such replacement came
>         forth in the change. They were simply deleted.
>
>
>     The text that was selected continues in the lasted published WG
>     draft. It is true that it no longer exists in Ian's editor's drafts.
>       I have stated that you have an opportunity to produce a
>     "Richard's" editor's draft, and have it published alongside Ian's.
>
>     Should we get statements from multiple browser vendors of their
>     intent, and we continue to NOT get new information and NOT get a new
>     Change Proposal, then we will reinstate the prior decision.
>
>
>          > > Could you please clarify how this is consistent with the
>         HTML working
>          > > groups decision policy or with the process you refer to below?
>          >
>          > There exists a document in CVS with Ian's name on it with the
>         following
>          > text prominently in the frontmatter:
>          >
>          > The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working
>         Draft
>          > does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML
>         working
>          > group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any
>          > section of the specification, one can usually find many
>         members of
>          > the working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to
>          > the current text, the existence of the section at all, or the
>         idea
>          > that the working group should even spend time discussing the
>          > concept of that section.
>          >
>          > If you would like to create a parallel document in CVS with
>         your name on
>          > it and the same disclaimer, we will help you do that. But I
>         will state
>          > that there really is no need to do that. Your Change
>         Proposals are
>          > sufficient.
>          >
>         If our original change proposals were sufficient and they were
>         indeed
>         voted on then why would the chairs allow an alternative
>         (non-voted on
>         spec.)?
>
>         The point being that our change proposals for Issue 131 were
>         clearly not
>         sufficient as someone is simply able to overwrite them.
>
>
>          > I already stated why the Chairs elected to take this action.
>         If you
>          > have a problem with this, I encourage you to take this up
>         with PLH.
>          > Mike Smith will assist you in this effort should you decide
>         to go this
>          > route.
>          >
>          > Obviously, I would encourage you to focus on obtaining
>         implementer
>          > testimonials instead of taking that path, but the choice is
>         yours.
>          >
>         As I stated, we are not in CR. There should be no reason to do
>         this at
>         this time. We were in the process of implementing them and the
>         chairs
>         torpedoed the effort. Enterprise browser manufacturers want to
>         implement
>         a spec. that is approved. The chairs killed that effort.
>
>
>     No spec, at this point, is approved.  I encourage you to read the
>     status section of the editor's working draft carefully.
>
>
>          > > I also noticed Ian went into numerous related defects and added
>         requests
>          > > for use cases, such as:
>         https://www.w3.org/Bugs/__Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13578
>         <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13578>
>          > >
>          > > We have on numerous occasions provided information on
>         things like
>          > > providing the bounds of an object such as Frank Olivier
>         presented at
>          > > TPAC. Please refer to the use cases minuted at the TPAC
>         discussion.
>          >
>          > I'm pleased to see that things are progressing again. As to Ian's
>          > request: since you state that the data is already publicly
>         available, I
>          > encourage you to provide pointers to that data.
>          >
>         You were at the TPAC face to face and in fact sat in on Frank
>         Olivier's
>         presentation. You are welcome to spend your cycles sending Ian a
>         link to
>         the meeting minutes. The chairs created this situation - not the
>         people
>         working on canvas accessibility.
>
>         Allowing this to happen raises some concerns for me. These are
>         that the
>         W3C's processes for producing specifications appears compromised and
>         that we are entering an anti-competitive state on the Web. One
>         that does
>         not favor people with disabilities.
>
>         Unfortunately, we will have to present this change on Canvas
>         accessibility at SXSW and CSUN. Where at one time we had hoped to
>         provide positive work on canvas accessibility, now due solely to the
>         chairs response in this matter, we do not.
>
>         This is a very sad situation.
>
>
>     Again, I understand the frustration.  But if Mozilla is planning on
>     sending representatives to SXSW and CSUN and making statements as to
>     what Mozilla intends to implement, perhaps those individuals could
>     be encouraged to make such a statement on the public_html mailing list?
>
>
>          > In any case, if for any reason these bugs aren't resolved to your
>          > satisfaction by December 31st 2011[1], you will have the
>         opportunity to
>          > escalate the bugs and propose your own resolutions in the form of
>          > concrete Change Proposals.
>          >
>          > > I am leaving for vacation in an hour and will be
>         unavailable for mostly
>          > > through the end of the year. I look forward to your reply.
>          >
>          > Unfortunately, I wasn't around to respond within the hour.
>         Hopefully
>          > you will see this when you return.
>          >
>          > > Best Regards,
>          > > Rich
>          >
>          > - Sam Ruby
>          >
>          > [1]
>         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-html/2011Jun/__0315.html
>         <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0315.html>
>
>
>     - Sam Ruby
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 18:32:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:28 UTC