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

Re: Promise broken on ISSUE 204?

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:02:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvc1_qQ0yo0EywXp0QRQcL_cqZBeU9-Eq+WQwmsctoYO1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
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>
Hi Sam, John, and all,

Sam, thank you for the pointers to the Face -to-Face minutes.

John, thanks again for disentangling the proposed the draft revisions
from  the accessibility task force consensus change proposal.

Best Regards,
Laura

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v2
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Apr/0222.html
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v3

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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



-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 12:02:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 May 2012 12:02:45 GMT