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

Re: ISSUE-122 shalott-example: Call for revisions

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:40:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4D5AE4AC.7060709@intertwingly.net>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 02/08/2011 05:25 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
>
> you wrote:
> "The Chairs have reviewed the proposals for ISSUE-122 shalott-example,
> and find them both wanting as written."
>
> both impying that there are only 2 what about Change Proposal: Purely
> Decorative Images (Section 4.8.1.1.7)
> <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images> -
> by Gregory J. Rosmaita <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Grosmai> ?
>
> anyway I have updated my change proposal
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/thematicimages#Details
>
> can you tell me whether the udpate has chnaged the chairs view that it
> is "wanting as written" if not can you please exaplin what is wanting.

You've addressed our request, and I've updated the issue status page to 
include both proposals.  The one thing I would like to ask is whether or 
not there is any possibility of an amicable merge of these two proposals?

> regards
> stevef

- Sam Ruby

> On 7 February 2011 19:12, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com
> <mailto:mjs@apple.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     The Chairs have reviewed the proposals for ISSUE-122
>     shalott-example, and find them both wanting as written. If they are
>     not updated within a week, by February 14, 2011, they will be
>     dropped from consideration. If no proposals remain, the issue will
>     be closed without prejudice.
>
>     * Steve's null Change Proposal does not apply a consistent
>     resolution to all WG drafts, as previously mentioned by the chairs:
>     <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/thematicimages>.
>
>     * Laura's proposal to remove text alternative examples goes
>     considerably beyond the scope of the issue, in the judgment of the
>     chairs
>     <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/TextAlternativesIssue122>.
>     The original scope of the issue was about the details of one
>     particular example. This proposal removes all accessibility advice
>     for textual equivalents, and in the course of doing so entirely
>     deletes a WG draft. It is reasonable to propose this, but not as
>     part of this narrow issue. We offer the following options:
>
>        ** Revise the Change Proposal to fit the narrower scope of
>     ISSUE-122 (just the one example that was at issue).
>
>        ** File a bug requesting the changes in the proposal, and if
>     necessary escalate it. It will then be treated as its own issue.
>
>     It's fine to do either or both of these things (or none if there is
>     no desire to pursue the issue further).
>
>     Regards,
>     Maciej
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> |
> www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner>
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/>
> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:40:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:22 UTC