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 18:28:34 +0000
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E299454@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> 
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
> wrote: 
> >>
> >> 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.

Totally fair.

I do feel, however, that there are open items I raised/asked that haven't been answered. I don't consider those arguments and I await the new information still.


> >> 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?

Yes.


> >> 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?

No (because I don't know where to look), and yes, it would. What would make me evenmore comfortable is if *they* tell me that I should go with #2 (I'm getting lost in the email archives).

What I don't know, however, is if their roles with the groups mean they are agreeing to this based on a directive from W3C management (just as Sam said the chairs' intention to proceed with the survey was put on hold by W3C management) and a clear indication that no other option was allowed, or because they genuinely thought this was the right course of action for accessibility.

I understand I have to search to find that answer.
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 18:29:03 UTC

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