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

Re: FW: Revert request r7023

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:54:15 -0400
To: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120316145415.GD5809@sonata.rednote.net>
I support this revert request.

I do so out of process concerns. My support is not a judgement on the
merrit of the new specification language. For all I know, this new
specification may be positively brilliant. Allowing a W3C specification
heartbeat publication to move forward with this language unvetted,
without even a diff or CP to assist the WG in properly evaluating it, is
both unnecessary and imprudent.

Move the current heartbeat publication without this new language. If the
new language survives the consensus process, it will not be too late to
include it in the next heartbeat this summer.

Janina

Frank Olivier writes:
> FYI
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Olivier 
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:59 PM
> To: Anne van Kesteren; Charles Pritchard; Edward O'Connor
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revert request r7023
> 
> We've discussed this further and I would like to request that this change be reverted.
> 
> At this time, while the group is about to publish new heartbeat drafts, we believe that this change reduces rather than increases consensus. 
> The goal of heartbeat publications is to show progress and increasing consensus. This change has been made with no discussion in the working group and no bugs filed in Bugzilla. It potentially conflicts with the change proposal for improving accessibility in canvas (ISSUE-201). We have invested a large amount of time discussing this with many members of the group before we submitted it. 
> 
> If r7023 is a counter proposal for ISSUE-201 then it should be submitted through the escalation process.
> 
> If not, then implementing the accessibility improvements described in our change proposal is a higher priority than adding features that haven't been discussed in the working group.
> 
> In either case, this change seems to be harmful to the goal of adding consensus-driven accessibility improvements to canvas.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:24 PM
> To: Charles Pritchard; Edward O'Connor; Frank Olivier
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revert request r7023
> 
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:18:12 +0100, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > We currently have no plans to add Path support. We're concerned that 
> > adding this feature to the canvas 2d API spec at this time increases 
> > web developer confusion about which parts of the spec are stable and 
> > interoperable.
> 
> I don't really understand this argument. What does time have to do with it?
> 
> 
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 14:54:48 GMT

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