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

Re: Promise broken on ISSUE 204?

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 15:58:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4FA8295D.1020801@intertwingly.net>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 05/07/2012 01:21 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>
> I may be forced to revert my CP withdrawal
> and pursue my document further.

I encourage you to read the meeting minutes.  In particular, I'll 
highlight that material that I think you should focus on.

There likely would be a strong objection to Cynthia's and (and possibly 
your) proposal(s):

   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20120505#l-142

The basis of this was a statement that the spec text as drafted would 
specifically preclude UAs (including browsers) from ever giving a better 
experience:

   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20120504#l-2920

On the other hand, there didn't seem to be anybody in the room opposed 
to giving authors strong guidance that they can't depend on such 
behavior, e.g.:

   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20120504#l-2903

At this point, I'm not suggesting any specific action, other than 
reviewing this discussion.  You are welcome to re-propose your proposal, 
with or without change.  Just be aware that not making a change in 
response to what may turn out to be a strong objection could negatively 
affect the chances of your proposal being selected.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 19:58:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:48 GMT