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

Re: Revert Request

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:19:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-buk4vUk1UzWav-M_KD2mod-4cBiCmOy0isttf9py6uQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi  Jonas,
>
>>> The change directly implements half of Jonas' longdesc proposal.
>> That seems like a terrible reason to request a change to be reverted.
>
> The editor and you circumvented the working group and decided to
> implement a material change from a proposal for an open accessibility
> issue. This  is unconscionable.

First of all, I didn't circumvent anything. I had a discussion with
Hixie which apparently were persuasive to him. This discussion
happened long enough ago that I can't remember when, but it was at
least a couple of months ago. Probably around the time when I wrote my
change proposal.

> The chairs stated in their "Enhanced change control after the Last
> Call cutoff." message ,  "Based on past experience, it seems likely
> that changes to accessibility topics already covered by issues are
> likely to be controversial. Editors may want to tread carefully in
> that area until the issues are resolved". [1] Issue 30 is a very,
> very, controversial subject.

I was under the impression that the editor was still allowed to make
changes to the spec at his discretion, but that those should be
reverted if they were deemed controversial. But maybe the rules have
changed since then, I unfortunately don't have time to follow the list
fully any more.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 01:20:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:43 GMT