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

Re: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:44:43 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kN+dw2-wrV-L8E+m9_RiFyON5xwNG5D=ph09feGeeJ+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 09/20/2012 07:44 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Similarly, I was surprised by what is stated for Issue-194
>> full-transcript attribute :
>>
>>      Allow the A11y TF the authority to produce an extension spec that
>> includes full-transcript. If such a specification obtains consensus
>> and meets the proposed CR exit criteria by 2014Q2 it could be folded
>> back into the core HTML spec at that time.
>>
>> We already have two change proposals for this issue that both came out
>> of the a11y TF. I was under impression that the next step was a
>> decision by the chairs. Are you now expecting the a11y TF to decide
>> between the two change proposals and come up with spec text for it?
>
>
> Would the following work for you?  (Changes in _UNDERSCORED_CAPS_)
>
> Allow the A11y TF the authority to produce _ONE_OR_MORE_ extension spec_S_
> that include full-transcript. If _ANY_ such a specification obtains
> consensus and meets the proposed CR exit criteria by 2014Q2 it could be
> folded back into the core HTML spec at that time.


I think so. However, I assume that the existing 3 change proposals
already are 3 extension specifications, so I assume we are already at
the stage of asking to find out where consensus lies.

I am a bit surprised about all this, though, because issues in the
past that were provided with multiple change proposals and had gone
through a phase of input from the WG were then analysed by the chairs
and a decision was made about which CP to accept, or what path to take
next. This seems to have been replaced by pushing the CP discussion
into the a11y TF. I'm curious about the reasons for this. Is it
because there are no implementations of this feature and therefore it
is at risk for HTML5?

Thanks for clarifying.

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 00:45:36 UTC

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