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 13:34:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4A65FC16.8000303@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> 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.
> I think you misunderstand what people are willing to propose. For 
> instance, I imagine those folk wanting to put a @summary vote out to be 
> willing to put out tangible text for that section, but they don't want 
> to have to duplicate the entire document just to propose that one 
> section. You see? That makes no sense. There's a reason sections have 
> identifiers.

If you look at the change log for action 128, you will see that it 
briefly had a status of pending review:


The reason why it was listed as such (again briefly) is that it was felt 
that sending a draft to the chairs merited such a status.  The status 
now reads "open" as the draft vote is not available for public review.

Suffice it to say that I have seen a draft, and it does not match what 
you imagine, in that it is not tangible spec text.  But as I said, if 
that draft ends up being what people agree to vote on, I will 
accommodate and facilitate.

As to "That makes no sense", I have a concrete counter example, provided 
by Manu:


I grant that such an approach might not make sense in all cases.  In 
other cases, it has the potential to answer a lot of questions before 
they are even asked.  I maintain that it isn't overly difficult to do 
(though I imagine that Manu has ideas now on how to streamline the 
process even further), and that by pro-actively answering a number of 
unasked questions, products produced as a result of such an approach 
might attract more support.

In any case, not a requirement, but something to consider.  Or not.

> As for editing, I don't think there would be that much of a problem 
> finding someone willing to integrate the different vote results. But you 
> left something out: Ian Hickson is the only "official" editor of the 
> only "official" version of HTML 5. (Ignoring the no longer active Apple 
> co-author.)
> So, how do you get to A from B, Sam? How do you get from our existing 
> state today, to one where these supposedly alternative sections are 
> voted on, and then there needs to be integration of the voting result 
> made by _someone_, when the only person who is _allowed_ editing access 
> is Ian Hickson?
> It gets fuzzy after that point. Sorry if I'm asking for what's obvious 
> to everyone else, but could you give me the precise steps to take, from 
> prep of voting text, to vote, to incorporation into existing working 
> draft based on your preferred approach (camera ready spec text)?

Anybody who wishes to edit can arrange to do so:


Once a tangible work product (be it a completely independent spec or a 
"mashup") is produced and a minimum level of diverse public support is 
demonstrated, a vote can be called for[1], and the work product (and by 
implication, the editor that produced it) can be viewed as "official".

>>> -- 
>>> 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
> Shelley

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0135.html
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 17:34:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:34 UTC