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

Re: Revert request

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:42:35 -0700
Message-ID: <4F60D88B.2050802@jumis.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 3/14/2012 10:34 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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.

What expectation is there that I30 would be re-opened? It seems that 
I204 is a blocker, but otherwise, there are no further proposals to be 
discussed.

>
> 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.

While you're getting that closure, I want to re-iterate: a functioning 
mapping of longdesc to ARIA would be great.
aria-describedby does not do this; we will need a different semantic. 
Perhaps that's a new issue to re-open, unrelated to I30.

> 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.

I'm glad I204 is wrapping up. My understanding was that I30 and I204 
were split so that both could move forward.

It does seem, instead, that they were split, to allow I204 to move 
forward... and that does seem to be working.

Let's keep moving I204 forward at a rapid pace, and in good faith, we 
can sit tight a little while longer on I30.

Are there any other blockers for I30?

-Charles
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 17:42:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:30 UTC