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

Re: [HTMLWG] CR Exit Criteria redux

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:59:01 -0400
Message-ID: <50635075.9090606@intertwingly.net>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/26/2012 02:32 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:07 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I see your point. But I think such a requirement would be unacceptable to members of
>> the Accessibility Task Force, who will likely want to submit implementation claims
>> based on combinations of totally separate software (a browser and a screenreader)
>> and where it's unlikely the implementor of either piece would make a submission,
>> let alone both. So I have not added it to the draft CR exit criteria.
>
> It is unacceptable to Microsoft that anyone other than Microsoft submit implementation
> reports for Internet Explorer.

Can we discuss this in positive rather than negative terms?

Here is an example of an extension specification:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/att-0478/longdesc.html

Here is the draft process for integration of extensions during CR:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v3.html#cr-integration

Here is the draft exit criteria that we propose to be used:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html

Here are examples of "stacks" that likely will be submitted as evidence 
of meeting the exit criteria:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0382.html

Here is Microsoft's position on the topic in question:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0289.html

Taken together, what specific changes would you suggest to the draft 
exit criteria or process for integration?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 18:59:27 UTC

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