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

RE: ISSUE-194: full-transcript - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:53:48 -0700
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <027501cd07bd$de03b250$9a0b16f0$@ca>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> 
> I can now. Please find a proposal for aria-describedat under
> discussion at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/aria-unofficial/raw-
> file/tip/describedat.html
> .
> 
> I expect that this attribute will be added to Aria 1.1 and it
> satisfies the needs of Issue 194.
> 
> I would therefore like to repeat my request to not resolve this issue
> at this time.

I respectfully object to that reasoning - this is an unofficial draft of an
idea that will only start to see development work in the summer of 2012
and/or when ARIA 1.0 reaches Recommendation status: should that progress be
frustrated by any turn of events there remains a possibility that work on
ARIA 1.1 may also be deferred. Is it really the intention of the HTML5
Working Group to defer progress on HTML5 based on proposed work in another
Working Group that has yet to officially begin?

Given that the proposed new ARIA attribute is relatively undefined in terms
of what it can or cannot do, it is premature to state that it solves the
use-case requirement of Issue 194, especially in light of the fact that
currently the status of @longdesc remains undetermined - should @longdesc
not prevail then this proposed new ARIA attribute would be /could be used
for a longer textual description of the movie, and not as a linking
mechanism for the transcript. Further, a transcript is not a longer
description, and confusing them at this early stage could have potentially
harmful effects on the use and adoption of the newly proposed ARIA
attribute.

I object to an indefinite deferring of this problem based upon what might
happen someday down the road. I also note that concurrent to this request
from Silvia is a related request from Ted O'Connor for a two week extension
to the deadline for Issue 194 (which happens to be today), which is a
significantly more reasonable request.  

To quote Sam from last weekend, "We need to get HTML5 behind us", and
deferring this important need indefinitely is a wrong decision. I would ask
that the Chairs grant Ted his request, but put a hard deadline of April 4th
on the extension (especially in light of the fact that Ted - presumably on
behalf of the Safari engineers - has an alternative idea on deck). We need
to solve this problem before HTML5 goes to Candidate Recommendation, and
waiting on possible work in a different Working Group with undefined
timelines is ludicrous. 

JF
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 23:54:21 GMT

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