W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Revert request

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:25:04 +0100
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.waskb2cjidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:46:40 +0100, Laura Carlson  
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sam, Paul, and Maciej, and Mike,
>
> On the surface Simon's reasoning below appears logical. However, the
> change still biases Issue 30 for the same rationale provided in:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0425.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0453.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0455.html
>
> If the revert does not happen, then I object to the HTML5 differences
> from HTML4 heartbeat spec being published

FYI, the CfC says:

"- Objections may be made on specific documents but not on others.  
Counting the differences document, there are effectively eight different  
documents under consideration at this time."


> as well as the HTML5 spec
> for these same reasons.
>
> I would have filed a Last Call Formal Objection had I known that the
> Chairs would delay ISSUE-30, not expedite it as promised, and  that it
> would still be undecided today. Working Group members were mislead.
>
> Mike, I assume one recourse to all of this is to file an appeal to
> have Last Call rescinded as it was entered into under a false promise
> [1]. Is this correct?
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0425.html
>
> Related documentation:
>
> November 30, 2010, Sam Ruby said to Gregory,
> "Our position has always been that we are seeking a description of
> what problems longdesc solves, and a description of how long desc
> makes things better."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0299.html
>
> November 30, 2010, I replied and asked Sam,
> "I have been gathering documentation [4]. It is just a matter of if it
> will be productive to try to reopen ISSUE-30 or more efficient go
> straight to a Formal Objection. Your advice?"
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0298.html
>
> November 30, 2010,  Sam Ruby replied,
> "I do not recommend that you  proceed directly with that information
> directly to the Director.  My  advice is that that information, when
> it is deemed to be complete, be presented to the HTML WG on
> public-html."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0300.html
>
> February 21, 2011, instead of filing a Formal Objection I asked for
> Issue 30 to be reopened because of Sam's November 30 email.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0362.html
>
> May 25, 2011, in the "Responses to Last Call survey objections" the
> Chairs promised to expedite the processing of Issue 30 issue during
> Last Call.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0347.html
> To date this as not happened.
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:50:06 +0100, Laura Carlson
>> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Sam, Paul, and Maciej,
>>>
>>> As ISSUE-30 longdesc is still an open issue and not yet decided, I
>>> request that the following be reverted:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/html4-differences/Overview.src.html.diff?r1=1.167;r2=1.168
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16237
>>
>>
>> It seems to reflect the current state of the HTML5 spec, AFAICT, since  
>> the
>> HTML5 spec lists obsolete features in the "Obsolete features" section.
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/obsolete.html#obsolete
>>
>> As for open issues, the diffs draft says:
>>
>> "HTML5 is still a draft. The contents of HTML5, as well as the contents  
>> of
>> this document which depend on HTML5, are still being discussed on the  
>> HTML
>> Working Group and WHATWG mailing lists. The open issues are linked from  
>> the
>> HTML5 draft."
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/Overview.src.html#open-issues
>>
>>
>>
>>> I ask that working group process not be bypassed and circumvented and
>>> that the change be reverted until such time as the issue is fairly
>>> heard and openly decided.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Laura
>>> --
>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Simon Pieters
>> Opera Software
>
>
>


-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 08:25:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:48 GMT