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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:12:51 -0400
Message-ID: <505108E3.1090400@intertwingly.net>
To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/06/2012 09:52 AM, Sam Ruby 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.

At the present time there is ample evidence that the first path is the 
preferred alternative:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0182.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0183.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0117.html

Given this excellent progress, and noting that there is dissent within 
the working group against pursuing second path listed above, the chairs 
are no longer pursuing this thought experiment any further.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 22:13:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 September 2012 22:13:20 GMT