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

Re: Issue 30 (Was: RE: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:19 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <24631BF2-26DC-43A2-B795-9D508BA56E00@apple.com>
To: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com> wrote:

>> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> [...]
>>> 
>>> I am still new to the group and trying to get a handle on the process
>>> overall.
>>> 
>>> In this proposed draft plan can the a11y TF simply take the authored
>>> CP to re-instate longdesc and call it an extension spec? I assume
>>> format changes would be required, but I thought the heavy lift had
>>> been done to define it.
>> 
>> Yes.
> [...]
> 
> After some time doing other things (ok, deciding on lunch) another idea occurred to me...
> 
> This Plan 2014 document is just a proposal and it's up for discussion now with an indeterminate agreement date.
> 
> Can we just move ahead on the issue 30 survey? If that was the last step to resolving it, it might close (one way or the other) one of the 10 remaining open items for moving HTML5 along-- the only item that has a date on it and which has also passed.

The Chairs expect that a decision in favor of any ISSUE-30 Change Proposal is likely to lead to a Formal Objection. We believe the approach outlined in the plan may be able to avoid a Formal Objection. This will save time on net, if we can get everyone's buy-in. We also think treating the remaining issues equally is important to getting people to agree with this approach for their own pet issues, which is why we did not suggest singling any out for different treatment.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 16:13:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 September 2012 16:13:59 GMT