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

RE: hypothetical question on longdesc

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 23:21:10 -0700
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00be01cd04cf$54af2c00$fe0d8400$@ca>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> Meanwhile, we desperately need to break out of the following state:
> 
> 1) We need a decision *now* on longdesc
> 2) We are still working on proposals for longdesc
> 3) The chairs are jerks

1) If not *now* Sam, *when*? 

In May of 2011, the Chairs responded to Objections to Last Call by stating
to the Working Group the following:

	"After discussion with the PFWG Chair, the Team, and the Director,
we have concluded that it is best to proceed with this issue still open,
give a clear indication of that status, and expedite the processing of the
reopened issue during Last Call."
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0347.html 

Respectfully, can we get a definition of "expedite" from the Chairs?  My
trusty online Merriam-Webster defines that word as:

	1: to execute promptly 
	2: to accelerate the process or progress of: speed up

- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expedite 

After waiting patiently for over 10 months, can we get a specific date when
the Chairs plan to actually do something here? Failing to communicate even a
time-line to the Working Group leaves everyone in a state of uncertainty.
This failure of communication falls squarely on the shoulders of the Chairs,
as the next step is clearly yours.


2) Has anyone actually come forward with a new Change Proposal for Issue 30?


After the last round of churn, the Chairs opened a new Issue (based upon
lord-knows-what: there is a significant lack of clarity in the posting of
Issue 204, including actually referencing aria-hidden, which is out of scope
for this Working Group). In fact, the entire linkage of ARIA and hidden
content has very little to do with the question of whether @longdesc should
remain conformant in HTML5. Alternative techniques should in no way negate
existing techniques, or the need for them, the support for them or the
validity of them.  

Had the Chairs done what they promised to do last May (See #1 above), then
this extended, continuous churn would not exist today. You are reaping what
you have sown.


3) Nobody has called the Chairs jerks (except of course you). What many have
continued to express is a sense of frustration that the Chairs are
deliberately sitting on their hands, waiting for some kind of magical
solution to arrive. The lack of clear leadership and unambiguous timeline on
when you plan to address Issue 30, an almost willful abandonment of the
promise to "expedite" this Issue, is palpable and real - to the point that
even you are feeling that the Chairs are being perceived as "jerks".

And so I directly challenge you and your fellow Chairs to step up to the
plate and publish some dates. Issue 204 (aka the ARIA stall) is, as you have
noted, wrapping up despite your favored extension of the deadline to March
10th (from Feb. 28th), and there are (by my count) 2 proposals before the
Chairs. When will that Issue be addressed? March? April? May? The 1st, the
15th, the 30th?

Once Issue 204 is resolved, when will Issue 30 be addressed? March? April?
May? The 1st, the 15th, the 30th?

Give us a date Sam, and let's get on with it.

> We need to get HTML5 behind us, so that we can get to have this fun all
> over again.

Exactly what many have been saying. The ball is in your court.

JF
Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 06:22:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:31 UTC