W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2012

Request to open new issue to expand longdesc (was Re: hypothetical question on longdesc)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:41:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvcLBWbe_+9HDHfbdmsK2SYTmmC3KDh-bnch2NwA5=tOkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Paul,

I wrote:

>>>> Including an attribute or element in HTML5 is a SEPARATE issue than
>>>> modifying an attribute or element after a decision to include it in
>>>> the spec has been adjudicated.

Sam wrote:

>>> There is no such separate issue being tracked for HTML5, and we are
>>> past last call.

I wrote:

>> That is a very sad state of affairs. Would the Chairs consider
>> opening such an Issue due to the circumstances?

Paul wrote:

> The WG Chairs have no mechanism for opening up such a new issue.

1. Go to: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open
2. Select: "Raise an issue"

Paul wrote:

> There is no Last Call bug that we could associate such a new issue
> with and the date for the creation of issues for the current Last Call
> has passed.

Sam opened Issue 204 with no last call bug.

I ask you Paul, how in the world can a person file a bug to
modify/expand an attribute if that attribute is obsolete? If the
Chairs had decided the reopened ISSUE-30 pre-last call as I asked last
well over a year ago or expedited it as promised during last call as
you promised last year,  bugs could have been filed within your
timeline, and this would not be a problem now. But the Chairs declined
to decide it pre-last and did not expedite it as promised during last
call. The Chairs are in charge of the issue schedule and polling; I'm
not.

I have tried my best to work in good faith within the WG process. For reference:

= History of the Issue =

August 21, 2010, Sam Ruby said:
"...If you have new facts to bring forward, you may do so at any time."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0222.html

November 30, 2010, Sam Ruby said:
"Our position has always been that we are seeking a description of
what problems longdesc solves, and a description of how longdesc makes
things better."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0299.html

November 30, 2010, I asked Sam:
"I have been gathering documentation. It is just a matter of if it
will be productive to try to reopen ISSUE-30 or more efficient go
straight to a Formal Objection. Your advice?"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0298.html

November 30, 2010, Sam Ruby replied,
"I do not recommend that you proceed directly with that information
directly to the Director. My advice is that that information, when it
is deemed to be complete, be presented to the HTML WG on public-html."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0300.html

It was repeated that there was no rush to ask for longdesc to be
reopened PRE-Last Call:
 * December 1, 2010 Paul Cotton said: "...there is no rush to make
this request."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0026.html
 * January 6, 2011 Mike Smith said: "... don't have any particular
time-pressure to follow up with new info"
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-html-a11y-minutes.html#item04

21 February 2011, because of Sam's November 30, 2010 response to me
instead of filing a Formal Objection I asked for ISSUE-30 to be
reopened:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0362.html

March 2, 2011, the HTML Chairs reopened HTML-ISSUE-30:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Mar/0015.html

The request to decide the issue PRE-Last Call was denied by the HTML Chairs.

May 16, 2011, the accessibility task force endorsed my proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0170.html

May 25, 2011, in the "Responses to Last Call survey objections" the
HTML Chairs promised to EXPEDITE the processing of ISSUE-30 during
Last Call:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0347.html

April 3, 2012, accessibility task force consensus continues to support
reinstating longdesc as fully conforming:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0003.html

To date the HTML Chairs have not expedited the issue. ISSUE-30 is
still open and undecided.

Due to the HTML Chairs delays, I again ask Paul,  please reconsider
opening  an issue to expand longdesc.

Best Regards,
Laura

--
Laura L. Carlson


On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Would the Chairs' consider opening such an Issue due to the circumstances?
>
> The WG Chairs have no mechanism for opening up such a new issue.  There is no Last Call bug that we could associate such a new issue with and the date for the creation of issues for the current Last Call has passed.  For reference see the Last Call timeline [1] and the timetable for re-opening issues [2].
>
> /paulc
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0315.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0099.html
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:09 AM
> To: Sam Ruby
> Cc: Leif Halvard Silli; Maciej Stachowiak; Paul Cotton; HTML Accessibility Task Force; public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: hypothetical question on longdesc
>
> Hi Sam,
>
>>> Including an attribute or element in HTML5 is a SEPARATE issue than
>>> modifying an attribute or element after a decision to include it in
>>> the spec has been adjudicated.
>>
>> There is no such separate issue being tracked for HTML5, and we are
>> past last call.
>
> That is a very sad state of affairs. Would the Chairs' consider opening such an Issue due to the circumstances?
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 20:42:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:47 GMT