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

Re: consensus and last call

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:39:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4A421080.6080909@intertwingly.net>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
- public-html

Steven Faulkner wrote:
> hi Sam,
> 
> "if it is the case that canvas is not accessible, and that there is
> strong agreement on "We will design all features so as to ensure that
> they are accessible to users with disabilities", then I would simply
> suggest we delay Last Call until this is addressed."
> 
> There is nothing hypothetical about the inaccessibility of canvas
> content and accessible design is a cornertsone of W3C philosophy, so I
> would suggest that unless it is resolved before October, it would
> contribute to a delay.

That's why I chose it as a concrete example. :-)

I hope I answered your question.

>> Another topic I don't like to spend much time on is "gate keepers",
>> particularly when we have a W3C team contact who is willing to give write
>> access to the document repository for the group to anybody with a credible
>> offer to edit a specification:
> 
> The issue is not the ability to edit "a specification" it is the
> ability of the "working group" to effect change of the html 5
> specification.

Since you cited a post on my weblog, permit me to do the same:

   http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/01/16/WHATWG-FAQ#workings

Specifically: 'I question the presumption implicit in the notions of 
“the” editor, and “the” spec.', as well as the text that follows that 
statement.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 11:40:29 GMT

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