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

Re: hypothetical question on longdesc

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:03:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvcJyD_mXwi-k1Btax-HNR+EkE4vQG9O25CHyHpUSLc=AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Hi Sam,

I wrote:

> 2. And if the answer to that the decision turns out to be: "Yes, we
> will include the longdesc attribute is in the spec.", I am asking: "Is
> there realistically enough time in the HTML5 timeline after the
> decision  ISSUE 30 is announced for this working group to modify
> longdesc to expand it to other attributes?" Or have the delays made
> that impossible?

To be perfectly clear, I would asking for a NEW issue NOT issue-30 but
issue-206 to modify an attribute.

If the Charis had expedited ISSUE 30 as promised and decided the issue
last summer or early fall  this would not be a problem now.

Best Regards,
Laura
--
Laura Carlson

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
>> Thanks for this email!  Sincerely!  There clearly is a disconnect, and
>> perhaps now we can get to the bottom of it.
>
> Yes Sam. There certainly is a disconnect. I am NOT asking for
> provisional decision. I am asking for a real and permanent decision on
> ISSUE-30.
>
> ISSUE-30 is:
> "Should HTML5 include a longdesc attribute for images?"
>
> Including an attribute or element in HTML5 is a SEPARATE issue than
> modifying an attribute or element after a decision to include it in
> the spec has been adjudicated.
>
> A recent case in point is @hidden:
>
> * ISSUE-95 on @hidden was to decide if we were to include the
> attribute in the spec. [1] The decision was: "Yes, we will include the
> hidden attribute is in the spec."
> * ISSUE-204 is to decide if we are going to modify that same attribute. [2]
>
> No one is asking to reverse the decision on ISSUE-95 and remove
> @hidden in ISSUE-204. That has already been decided.  ISSUE-95 is a
> real and permanent decision.
>
> Other past examples exist including the ISSUE-15 decision to keep
> canvas in the spec and the half dozen issues to modify canvas since
> that decision; the ISSUE-90 decision to keep figure in the spec and
> issues to modify figure since that decision is another example etc.
> etc.
>
> I am asking for equitable treatment for ISSUE-30.
>
> Specifically I am asking:
>
> 1. For a real and permanent ISSUE-30 decision to the question: "Should
> HTML5 include a longdesc attribute for images?"
>
> 2. And if the answer to that the decision turns out to be: "Yes, we
> will include the longdesc attribute is in the spec.", I am asking: "Is
> there realistically enough time in the HTML5 timeline after the
> decision  ISSUE 30 is announced for this working group to modify
> longdesc to expand it to other attributes?" Or have the delays made
> that impossible?
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/95
> [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Thanks for this email!  Sincerely!  There clearly is a disconnect, and
>> perhaps now we can get to the bottom of it.
>>
>>
>> On 03/19/2012 05:00 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, we desperately need to break out of the following state:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We need a decision *now* on longdesc
>>>
>>>
>>> We have needed an expedited decision for a very long time. It was
>>> promised but not delivered. Not providing one has been damaging.
>>
>>
>> What you appear to be saying is that you want a provisional decision that
>> will immediately be reopened.  That is not something that I will support.
>>
>> If you need more a small amount of time to produce proposals, I think that
>> could be accommodated.  Asking for a decision with the intention of
>> immediately reopening the decision is not something I would support.
>>
>>
>>>> 2) We are still working on proposals for longdesc
>>>
>>>
>>> My completed issue 30  proposal has been ready since May 2011 right
>>> after the accessibility task force came to consensus and endorsed it.
>>>
>>> Call for Issue 30 counter proposals passed June 2011. You received one
>>> proposal from Jonas and one from Matt Turvey.
>>>
>>> You split Jonas' proposal from Issue 30 to make Issue 204 February 2012.
>>>
>>> Jonas requested that 204 be surveyed before 30.
>>>
>>> Are not issue 204 proposals ready to be surveyed?
>>
>>
>> We have yet to ensure that all the proposals for issue 204 have been
>> reviewed, or even that we have received all such proposals.
>>
>>
>>>> 3) The chairs are jerks
>>>
>>>
>>> No one has applied that label but you, Sam. I do not think you are a jerk.
>>
>>
>> I will ask you to do one of two things: stop asking for an expedited
>> decision on issue 30, or stop expecting to be able to immediately reopen
>> that decision once it is issued.  I do not intend to support both requests.
>>
>>
>>>> It is theoretically possible for longdesc to be 'instated' as a valid
>>>> attribute on img in HTML5, but removed in HTML.next.  It is also
>>>> theoretically possible that longdesc is a valid attribute on img in
>>>> HTML5,
>>>> and will be valid on div too in HTML.next.
>>>
>>>
>>> What I would ask is if it is decided that longdesc is included in
>>> HTML5 via Issue 30, is there realistically enough time AFTER that
>>> decision is announced for this working group to expand longdesc to
>>> other attributes in the HTML5 timeline?
>>>
>>> Or has Issue 30 been delayed for so long, it is now now impossible for
>>> that to happen?
>>
>>
>> The chairs are willing to allow the proposals to be amended up to the point
>> of a survey, but not afterwards.  If you have something to propose, please
>> do so now.  Beyond that, future work will go into future releases of HTML.
>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Laura
>>
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson



-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 12:03:43 UTC

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