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

Re: Revert request

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:34:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4F60D6B8.8030104@intertwingly.net>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/14/2012 01:04 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> Thanks for your email. I asked:
>
>>> if the HTML Chairs now have a
>>> concrete action plan with a timetable and concrete dates to expedite
>>> ISSUE-30. Sam, Paul, and Maciej, do you have a plan? If so what is it?
>
> What I read in your response [1] does not answer my questions. It
> deflects and seems ambiguous with no clear timetable. If the chairs
> are stalling the issue in hopes that new information will emerge

Full stop.

People are actively working on what they believe to be viable 
alternatives.  I am not one of them.

204 seems to be wrapping up.  I want to establish that nobody in the 
a11y TF will be coming forward with an aria based proposal.  Given 
recent messaging from both Janina and Judy, that doesn't seem like 
something that would be difficult to obtain.

What I seem to be failing to communicate is that it is nobody's best 
interest to make a second decision on issue 30 when there is active work 
underway which, if successful, would cause issue 30 to be reopened yet 
again.

If your request is for a provisional decision based on the information 
we have to date with the expectation that it will be reopened yet again, 
then that simply is not something that I expect that I will ever support.

If that is what you are truly seeking, I suggest you work with Mike to 
seek an audience with the Director.

Meanwhile, I personally am focused on getting issue 204 behind us and 
obtaining affirmative closure of the aria describedBy discussion in 
order to clear the way for what I would hope to be a second and final WG 
decision on ISSUE 30.

To be clear: that decision may generate a Formal Objection, and if so, 
that FO will be duly recorded, forwarded, and processed.  But given that 
we have given everybody ample opportunity to present their best 
arguments on this subject, I want to make sure that it is NOT likely 
that the chairs will reopen the request based on new information yet again.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 17:35:21 GMT

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