W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2011

Re: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-04-21: New Issue, ISSUE-152, Decisions, Issue Status, Plans

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:11:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4DAEE99E.1040307@intertwingly.net>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 04/20/2011 09:32 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Sam
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> I have brought these FO's to the attention of the a11y taskforce and
> WAI domain lead as I consider the current state of the image
> requirements section of the spec and the decision to allow title to be
> conformimg on images without alt, to be serious issues that require
> action sooner rather than later.

I don't disagree that it is a serious issue.  Furthermore, I'm not 
discouraging any action.

However, I may differ on what constitutes "action".  New Information is 
action.  A revised Change Proposal is action.

A Formal Objection that is vague, incomplete, and does not provide 
substantive arguments or rationale is not in any way meaningful as an 
action.

> So I will discuss what is the best way forward on these issues with my
> colleagues, before making any decisions in regards to the FO's

Note: chairs am not the ones who evaluates FOs.  If you and your 
colleagues believe these FO's to be clear, complete, substantive, and 
contain sufficient rationale, then by all means, pursue them as is.

> regards
> Stevef

- Sam Ruby

> On 20 Apr 2011, at 13:57, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>
>> On 04/20/2011 07:38 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>> Hi sam,
>>>
>>> "While these Formal Objections can be delivered as is, both should
>>>    be withdrawn or replaced as they are unlikely to receive serious
>>>    consideration in their current form"
>>>
>>> what is the timefarme for the FO's to be updated to a form that will
>>> receive serious consideration?
>>
>> Unless expedited, that date is likely to be some time in 2012:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#q74
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#transition-reqs
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html
>>
>> In my opinion, whether expedited or not, Formal Objections that are vague, incomplete, do not provide substantive arguments or rationale serve absolutely no purpose what so ever.  If such are pursued they are likely to be summarily dismissed.  If they are withdrawn, similar or more complete Formal Objections on the same issue can be raised in the future.
>>
>> It should come as no surprise that I advocate exhausting all available means before a Formal Objection is raised in the first place.
>>
>> That being said, if a Formal Objection is raised it will be dutifully recorded and reported at the time of next Transition Request in whatever form the objector provides.
>>
>>> regards
>>> Stevef
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 14:12:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:35 GMT