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

Re: Revert Request

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:59:54 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvdr-kQkTa6w-nrGZAZh1CLpViDX3=1YokVAAb9zOViq4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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.

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.

Bypassing due process is unfair.

> is it good for the web and is it good for accessibility.

That has yet to be determined.

I have my own rationale for why it is not good for accessibility and
will submit it in the objection poll for Issue 30. It is unproductive
to go down your rat hole here.

Best Regards,
Laura
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0125.html
-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 13:00:26 UTC

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