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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:34:19 -0400
Message-ID: <505B8BDB.7030509@intertwingly.net>
To: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/20/2012 04:50 PM, Adrian Roselli wrote:
>> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
>>
>> Quite frankly, both appear to be valid objections, and the group should
>> continue to work to find common ground.  My belief is that given that status,
>> that work needs to continue independently until the question as to what
>> market this attribute is intended to serve is resolved.
>
> By "the group," do you mean HTML WG or a11y TF?

If the intent is to pursue longdesc via an extension specification and 
never reintegrate with the HTML5 specification, then the a11y TF.

If the intent is to reintegrate with the HTML5 specification, then the 
HTML WG, however work should initially proceed in the a11y TF.

> I will look for a link to the two plans. I assume there are two based on your comments.

http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-030

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 21:34:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 September 2012 21:34:47 GMT