W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2009

Re: PROPOSAL: Procedure to Promote Progress With Accessibility Issues in HTML5

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:19:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4A65DC98.3070808@intertwingly.net>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Steven Faulkner wrote:
> 
> sam ruby wrote:
> "3) Manu has indicated a willingness to work with Laura, John, and Steve.
>   For all I know that willingness may not be reciprocated, or may not
> work out.  In fact, every indication I have seen is that Laura and John
> would rather work on a process document than the spec itself.  If that
> is indeed what they wish to work on, then I will support them as I have
> supported Manu - separately."
>  
> I would be more than happy to work with Manu, which I have indicated to 
> him offlist already.

Excellent!

> I am still unsure whether collaboration is actually useful in terms of 
> the current procedural regime:
> If i write a spec that only has changes to the alt section i would think 
> it more likely to gain support, than if it also included RDFa, thus i am 
> discouraged from collaboration.
>  
> I consider a much fairer and more manageable way to handle it would be 
> to allow people to write modified sections or subsection and then put 
> each section up to a vote if consensus cannot be achieved.
> if there is not a section or subsection that has a draft alternative has 
> been produced and there are no formal objections realted to it, then it 
> can be considered as having consensus and be left in the draft for last 
> call.
> example:
> a vote on 3 choices
>  
> ians image section
> steves image section
> person x's image section
>  
> which ever gains the most support is the one that goes into the FPWD for 
> last call.
>  
> another example:
>  
> manus RDFa section
> ian's microdata section
> both microdate and RDFa
>  
> which ever gains the most support is the one that goes into the FPWD for 
> last call.
>  
> then we could end up with a document that is the product of the W3C HTML 
> working group.

If that's how people want to proceed, I'm OK with that, with but one 
minor reservation... ultimately there will need to to be somebody who is 
willing and able to do the necessary integration.  I gather that Manu is 
willing to do that up to a point, but it would not surprise me if he 
became considerably less enthusiastic about investing the time if (for 
example) RDFa wasn't included.

I wouldn't worry too much about it at this point.  If people want a 
vote, there will be a vote.  Even my opinion doesn't count for all that 
much: for example, I would prefer a vote on a document that contains 
tangible spec text for the table element including a summary element, 
but people who are preparing the text of the vote apparently want 
something else.  If people agree to what they prepare, we will go with that.

> -- 
> with regards
> 
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG Europe
> Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
> 
> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | www.wat-c.org 
> <http://www.wat-c.org>
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - 
> http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 15:20:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT