W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > December 2007

Re: DHTML Style Guide: http://dev.aol.com/dhtml_style_guide

From: Earl Johnson <Earl.Johnson@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:30:45 -0800
To: wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-id: <476706A5.40906@sun.com>

Al Gilman wrote:
> At 7:33 PM +0100 13 12 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> Moved to member private mail.
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:12:47 +0100, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca> wrote:
>>> Evans, Donald wrote:
>>>> We have a new location for the working document.
>>>> Please bookmark: http://dev.aol.com/dhtml_style_guide
>> PLEASE do not change locations of documents, and please keep W3C 
>> working documents in W3C space. See http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
> The short answer is that Don's page
> - is not the draft Best Practices Guide
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices
> - is not a W3C document
> - doesn't say it is a W3C document
> ..  but the short answer is too short.
> The full story is also that
> * Yes, PFWG expects to follow the recommendations of the
> AOL-organized caucus on widget feel, in the main.
> * Yes, we have asked them to use our <wai-xtech@w3.org> mailing list
> for their discussions.
> On the other hand the caucus Tom Wlodkowski has organized:
> * is staying out of "how to code it" discussions that we have to
> address in the Best Practices
> * needs a record of just what they _are_ working on for focus
> and momentum maintenance
> * is not limiting itself to widgets that have WAI-ARIA defined roles
> .. history:
> We tried to give the keystroke-choice discussions "their sandbox" in
> the form of a Best Practices Guide appendix that collected the
> key-binding usage from all the structures and widgets. And we decided
> to run the Best Practices work in the W3C (moin-moin) Wiki. This plan
> proved un-maintainable as document technology.
> So Don is supporting Tom's discussions with a cumulative record on
> the AOL Web Page and we are handling the compare/contrast of those
> results with what is in the W3C Best Practices Guide "manually."
> I hope that with this explanation you can see the approach has
> benefits for the accomplishment of our job in WAI-ARIA.
> Al
>> W3C has a whole range of tools that can be used to manage stuff on 
>> their website, from Amaya, Winie and Jigedit (save to 
>> http://www.w3.org/somewhere/you/are/authorised ) to direct CVS trees 
>> and version control. Putting W3C specs on the site of a single vendor 
>> is totally inappropriate and conveys the wrong message about W3C's 
>> development process. If a spec is scribbled together originally by a 
>> single developer it is reasonable that they post their draft, and if 
>> we agree to work on it then it is reasonable that that draft note 
>> further work takes place at W3C.
>> Having it branded by a particular vendor is totally unacceptable. I 
>> realise it may seem convenient at times to use the tools you are 
>> familiar with in-house, but it makes it very hard when I get internal 
>> questions about whether W3C is *really* a level playing field if 
>> people come up with things that look so much like they are 
>> proprietary. The W3C has had a consistent history of asking 
>> individuals and organisations to work in W3C space and that process is 
>> important to its members and to the public.
>> best
>> Chaals
>> -- 
>> Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>>     je parle franšais -- hablo espa˝ol -- jeg lŠrer norsk
>> http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

Gotta agree with Charles. I believe this was one of the reasons 
OpenOffice, the Linux Foundation, the W3C, and other [*].org 
opensource things got set up. So far we've all been working for 
us all and more [John Q.], it's important that the source of all 
that "us" energy be reflected on a "this is by and for us all" 

Having said this, wasn't the best practices stuff moved from W3C 
because the styleguide work isn't a "sanctioned?" effort? My 
recollection is an implication of that status was that by their 
rules, they couldn't host the styleguide wiki as a result 
separate from the technology issue Al mentions.

Finally, I just want something that's going to be taken seriously 
outside one company once the styleguide goes 1.0. In the end tho, 
this work should ultimately reside on a more neutral 
something.org site. Is this the plan?


Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 23:36:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:34 UTC