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

Re: Split Issue 30?

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:23:29 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvcsmoBABoA65e11_WpoheCcYkEWd8N+4qop9L31eor-Ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Hi Sam,

> I dislike this characterization and the innuendo that people may be playing
> tricks.

I am sorry you dislike it. But re-ordering issues to strengthen one
proposal over another is not equitable.

> You indicate (correctly) that this discussion has been going on for several
> years.  Less than two years ago, a decision was rendered based on the
> proposals that were provided.
>
> We subsequently reopened the discussion based on use cases that could have
> been provided during that time, but for whatever reason was not.

I did provide a use case on that poll but the chairs did not
understand it. That use case is the basis of all of the use cases.

> One way to proceed would be to split the issues and proceed as you
> previously stated: namely to re-decide the deprecation issue without
> considering the proposed change to how certain aria attributes are
> interpreted.
>
> One possible outcome of that would be that we would need to once again
> reopen the deprecation decision once that data has been gathered and
> presented.

longdesc is a useful attribute and should be included in the language.
If that is not the outcome of all of this, the only recourse will be
Formal Objection.

> This is all about the merits of the arguments.

Exactly. I have given you mine.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 16:23:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:44 GMT