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

Re: ISSUE-30: longdesc "InstateLongdesc" - outlook

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:16:28 -0400
Message-ID: <5048B03C.5090204@intertwingly.net>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
On 09/06/2012 10:11 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> I am certain that moving all ARIA out of HTML5 will not lead to an
> increase in consensus.
>
> We have one isolated issue which the 'jurisdiction' argument has been
> raised. I would suggest that it has no bearing on every other aspect
> of ARIA in HTML5 which resides in 3.2.7 WAI-ARIA [1].
>
> Why not take out the isolated piece and work on that in a separate
> document? or remove it and work on it in HTML.next? Its not as if any
> implementers are champing at the bit to implement what is currently in
> the spec that is causing the issue right?

I welcome a concrete proposal which identified any and all areas where 
joint ownership is warranted.  My only intent was to identify a 
potential upper bound on what that content would be.  If we can identify 
a much smaller set, that clearly would be preferable.

> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/wai-aria.html#wai-aria
>
> regards
> SteveF

- Sam Ruby

> On 6 September 2012 14:52, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2012 09:21 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>>> As this may take some time to resolve, I would like to Robin Berjon to
>>>> scope
>>>> out what it would take to split out all ARIA integration from the HTML
>>>> document into a separate spec that could proceed at a different pace from
>>>> the rest of the document, and with the intent that said document could
>>>> become a joint deliverable of the HTML WG and the PFWG.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like there currently are approximately 150 occurrences.
>>>>
>>>> $ grep "\baria\b" source | wc -l
>>>> 149
>>>
>>>
>>> As one of the people who has spent the last 5 years working on getting
>>> ARIA integrated into HTML5 I find the suggestion of removing it
>>> entirely because of one isolated issue, odiuous and inappropriate.
>>>
>>> We have worked through many, many issues on ARIA integration and while
>>> I am not entirely satisfied with the result, it is much better to have
>>> it in than out. I cannot fathom why this would be even be suggested.
>>>
>>> I for one would rigorously object to any such moves.
>>
>>
>> Acknowledged.
>>
>> Recapping the path that got us to this point:
>>
>>   * We had extensive discussion over a long period of time which
>>     produced two proposals, and a decision that chose one of the two.
>>
>>   * This produced a Formal Objection that appears to reject both
>>     proposals as acceptable solutions (which indicates a lack of
>>     participation) and cites an unwillingness to "cede decisions"
>>
>>   I hope you will agree that a lack of participation coupled with an
>>   unwillingness to cede decisions is a particularly deadly combination.
>>
>> The current state:
>>
>>    * We have a set of proposals for the path forward and -- this is
>>      the key part -- NO ACTIVE DISCUSSION OR SCHEDULE.  I will note
>>      that one of those proposals is from a co-editor of ARIA 1.0
>>      itself.
>>
>> The paths forward:
>>
>> 1) Active and vigorous discussion resumes, leading to the selection of
>>     one preferred alternative that everybody can live with.  If that
>>     occurs, I can assure you that the chairs will quickly and
>>     enthusiastically adopt said consensus.
>>
>> 2) Split out the portions where there is overlapping jurisdictions
>>     and make it a joint deliverable.  This is the less preferred
>>     of the two approaches.  I don't even know what the impact of
>>     doing so would be, but given that discussion has ceased, it would
>>     only be prudent to scope out such, and I've asked Robin to do so.
>>
>>> regards
>>> SteveF
>>
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>>
>>> On 4 September 2012 23:03, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/30/2012 04:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 00:09 -0400, Judy Brewer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the dependency on an unknown date (decision availability
>>>>>>> on Issue 204), and the overlap with scheduled vacations, we
>>>>>>> request a date of [Issue 204 decision availability] + 3 weeks,
>>>>>>> with the understanding that if we can have it ready earlier we
>>>>>>> will do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After doing some back and forth on this, including looking at the
>>>>>> impact on the timeline, I suggest that the Chairs start the survey
>>>>>> related to issue 30 on August 31st, and no later than that. If
>>>>>> changes have to be made to any of the change proposals, those must
>>>>>> be made before August 30th, 5PM EDT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At the request of the Director and the W3C Team, the Chairs are
>>>>> holding off on the ISSUE-30 survey until an unknown time, but no
>>>>> sooner than Wednesday next week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The latest outlook has now been revised to be "no sooner than 11 Sept".
>>>>
>>>> Current status on the expedited formal objection[1] is that it identifies
>>>> a
>>>> single paragraph to be removed.  Two proposed replacements have been
>>>> identified:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744#c0
>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18745#c2
>>>>
>>>> We have some indication that WAI ARIA would be the right place to discuss
>>>> proposed wording:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0284.html
>>>>
>>>> No time schedule was mentioned for providing said wording.
>>>>
>>>> The same minutes suggested that "jurisdiction" was a key concern.  The
>>>> formal objection itself makes a similar case.
>>>>
>>>> As this may take some time to resolve, I would like to Robin Berjon to
>>>> scope
>>>> out what it would take to split out all ARIA integration from the HTML
>>>> document into a separate spec that could proceed at a different pace from
>>>> the rest of the document, and with the intent that said document could
>>>> become a joint deliverable of the HTML WG and the PFWG.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like there currently are approximately 150 occurrences.
>>>>
>>>> $ grep "\baria\b" source | wc -l
>>>> 149
>>>>
>>>> Note: this request is just to scope out the effort, not to make the
>>>> changes.
>>>> The request is to get this information together -- possibly incomplete --
>>>> by
>>>> September 11, noon ET.
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 14:17:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:34 UTC