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

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

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:43:05 +0000
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E2992B8@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> 
> Why don't we set aside the abstract process questions for a second and
> focus on how the plan could apply here:

I am happy to do that, but please bear in mind I have so far heard no good reasons on why we can't just move ahead on issue 30 as already planned (I am assuming your discussion below if trying to move this along). I plan to keep pushing this until I have heard a good reason, have been proven wrong, or have been smothered by a pillow.

 
> Let's imagine these were the available options:
> 
> 1) longdesc is added back to the main HTML5 spec.
> 2) longdesc is defined by and published as a separate extension specification.
> 3) longdesc is not added back to anything.
> 
> What is your preference order among these options (no need to justify, for
> the moment)?

1. Since I consider #2 to be only slightly less acceptable than #3, then I will go with 2 then 3.

> You indicate that #2 is not your top preference, but can you live with it?

In the absence of any other options, yes.

> Particularly if key accessibility experts support this approach

That would be the selling point for me. If those experts tell me that I am on crack and should go with #2, I will go with #2. If those experts say #3, I'll go with that.

> Let's say you had a 50/50 chance of getting #1 or #3. Would you then consider
> #2 a livable alternative?

Mathematically that doesn't make sense to me. I think what you're asking me is that if #1 only had a 50% shot of making it, otherwise #3 would happen, would I then support #2 in lieu of trying for #1?

If so, no.

I'm not trying to be a contrarian with that answer. Leaving aside that it's a false dichotomy a la Let's Make a Deal, I have little confidence that #2 will result in a specification in any reasonable timeframe. I have plenty of evidence to back me up, given the timelines that have been promised for issue 30 resolution -- that it seems the chairs are now dismissing. As I wade through the archives I can see this issue has already been pushed off plenty of other times.

#2 is just delaying the pain of one of the two decisions. It's kicking the can down the street and I think it's bad in the long run as browsers and authors can continue to demonstrate a lack of support and bolster an argument against it.

I say we address it now (the survey), let it land where it does (#1 or #3), and move on to the next issue.
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 17:43:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 17:43:35 GMT