- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:43:43 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 02/02/2012 03:37 PM, Matthew Turvey wrote: > On 2 February 2012 07:07, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > [crop] >>> If anybody plans on either revising any of the current proposals or to submit a new proposal based on this feedback, please let us know so that we can plan accordingly. >> >> I won't have time to make these changes unfortunately. >> >> I did add a section that rebuts some of the claims that has been made >> in other change proposals and on this list. >> >> If someone wants to take the time to update my change proposal as >> requested above that would be appreciated. > > Hi Jonas, > > I could update the change proposal as required, and ping you for a > quick check when done? > > Maciej, would end of Feb be ok? > > If any other HTMLWG members, or PFWG members working on ARIA stuff, > want to contribute to this change proposal too that would be great. Surveys work best when there are exactly two options to chose from. In this case, there are currently three proposals, with two of them significantly overlapping. It would therefore be easier if we could split this into multiple issues. The idea would be to first proceed to a survey on the following two proposals: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescZeroEdit During that time, a change proposal can be worked on to cover the additional changes proposed by Jonas's current proposal. That proposal will not need to restate the arguments made in LongdescZeroEdit. If this is something that the WG can agree to, then end of month would be fine for such a (reduced scope) Change Proposal. - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:46:43 UTC