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

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

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 03:10:38 +0200
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: 'Matt May' <mattmay@adobe.com>, 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, 'Philippe Le Hegaret' <plh@w3.org>, 'Judy Brewer' <jbrewer@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120911031038101924.bb7120d0@xn--mlform-iua.no>
John Foliot, Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:37:55 -0700:
> Missing from this outline is the facts that:
>   a) there are actually 2 Formal Objections in place against the Issue 204
> Decision
> (http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html#ISSUE-204), 
>   b) one of the Formal Objections
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0402.html) was also
> requested to have an Expedited Review by the Director, and that this Review
> is in fact underway.

> Having re-read that second Formal Objection multiple times, I can see no
> relevant passage that "rejects both proposals". 

John, 

You are harmonizing. And that ain't no good, including not for 
yourself. I find that there is some basis for Sam's comment about the 
second FO. You did your best in attempting to create A11Y TF consensus 
around your change proposal. However, there were 3 other A11Y TF 
members who, in the poll, objected - more or less strong - to both 
options on the table,[1] including to your very own change proposal. I 
respect those who disagree with my reading, but in my opinion, the 
double objections in the poll are reflected in the second FO.

Apparently, the ARIA-ns felt they got more "love" than they could 
handle, from the HTMLwg. And we shall, I think, not brush away their 
objections. We can only work towards making something good out of it - 
so the right "distance" between HTML and ARIA can materialize. And, 
clearly, Bug 18744 shows that there are "hidden issues" directly in 
HTML even when we avoid mixing ARIA into it. (As if we did not know.) 
It is good, for HTML5 itself, to tackle them in its own space. And it 
was good to see that some bright members of the HTMLwg were moving even 
if we seemingly reached an impasse when trying to come to that 
decision. And as such we can also find some good in it all. Cheers to 
the first movers!

best,
leif halvard silli

[1] 
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-204-objection-poll/results
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 01:11:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 September 2012 01:11:12 GMT