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: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:55:12 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <044CD48A-61C1-48B8-A7EA-6138B8C94440@apple.com>
To: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>

On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com> wrote:

>> 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.

At this point, it's extremely unlikely we'll have a survey until we have taken our best shot at getting consensus on the extension spec solution. You don't have to agree with that, but if you comment further, please keep in mind this part of the HTML WG Discussion Guidelines:

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines>
"It's inappropriate to repeat the same argument over and over without adding new information."

Saying the same thing over and over is not mailing list behavior that we condone.

> 
> 
>> 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.

Sorry, I don't follow. Does that mean: #1 is your most preferred and #3 is your least preferred?

> 
>> You indicate that #2 is not your top preference, but can you live with it?
> 
> In the absence of any other options, yes.

Glad to hear that.

> 
>> 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.

Did you notice that Judy Brewer and Janina Saika (director of WAI and Chair of PFWG respectively, among other credentials) endorsed the plan as co-signers? I believe they are comfortable with the extension spec model for longdesc. Does that make you more comfortable with this approach?


Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 17:55:40 UTC

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