- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:50:09 -0400
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Message-ID: <4F731711.7050603@w3.org>
On 3/28/2012 9:24 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Well if you think it is a healthy state of affairs that important > stakeholders (ie various high profile implementor employees) don't > participate in the working group because they consider it to be a > joke, and publically state as much on a regular basis, then full steam > ahead. No I don't think that is at all healthy. > > The divergence between HTML5 and the HTML living standard has little > to do with snapshot versus continuous updates it has everything to do > with the perception of who's hands the development of HTML is in. > > As a working group member all I can do is raise issues when i see > them, the current non participation behvaiour of some folk works to my > benefit in terms of getting the changes I want to see accepted, but > the resulting divergence hurts developers and users. Yes, I agree that more participation is better. I work on it every day. > > I would rather have robust debate about changes than acceptance trough > non participation and forking, but that would involve all parties > acting in good faith. I would love to have a robust debate about changes. That is why I asked what you were trying to accomplish with the email. At one level, your email merely informed me and Philippe about some facts that we are already aware. I didn't see any proposal for changes. At a broader level, the AB is looking at broader changes in our process, but I'm not sure if that is the type of change you are proposing. > > > regards > Stevef > > On 28 March 2012 14:10, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> > wrote: > > On 3/28/2012 8:56 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> this is an example of a bug that was escalated as per the HTML WG >> process that went rough the process and was deemed as having >> consensus in the working group not because there is consensus, >> but because people who may disagree with the change did not >> participate. > > Not sure what to do with this observation. Our specs are always a > consensus of those that participate. If some choose not to > participate then the spec will not reflect their views. > > >> >> The editor obviously disagreed as he rejected the bug, but did >> not enter into any further discussion, his recent remarks on IRC >> strongly suggest he thinks its a bad idea. >> If the process is designed to standardise HTML then its not >> working, as I point out, when the editor disagrees with a change >> he simply creates another fork between the specs or to put it >> another way if the working group does not accept what the editor >> has in the spec another fork is created. > > Not sure what to do with this observation, either. The process is > for the Chairs to determine the consensus of the Working Group > even if the editor disagrees. Sounds like that is what is > happening. What are the alternatives? The editor is entitled to > his opinion if he disagrees. And the WG is entitled to their > opinion if they disagree with the editor. > > In terms of the divergence of the specs, I think it is a success > story that we have maintained alignment as long as we have. And I > agree it would be highly desirable to continue to maintain > alignment for HTML 5, as well as HTML.next. But it is > mathematically impossible for us to freeze a REC level HTML 5 and > expect that to be in perfect alignment with a changing WHAT WG LS. > > >> >> We appear to have gone from a state where there was active >> participation to a state where there is passive denial of the >> legitimacy of the process resulting in a consensual non-consensus. >> >> none of which can be described with a straight face as a working >> process. >> >> regards >> stevef >> >> On 28 March 2012 13:39, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org >> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> Steve, >> >> I apologize, but I don't know what this is. >> >> Is this: >> >> 1. fyi, about timelines of issues? >> 2. An escalation of the Chairs for not dealing with this >> issue per the HTML 5 WG process? >> 3. An observation that the finalized HTML 5 spec as it moves >> forward (LC--> CR --> REC) will diverge from a continually >> updated WHAT WG Living Standard (with presumably re-syncing >> as we move to HTML.next)? >> 4. Something else? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jeff >> >> >> On 3/28/2012 8:19 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: >>> I want to clarify one point that I implied by this statement >>> >>> "I suspect while this change will be applied to the W3C >>> HTML5 but not to the WHAT WG, resulting in further >>> divergence between the 2 specs and further dilution of >>> standardized authoring advice (in this case)." >>> >>> The active involvement of people, such as the editor in the >>> HTML WG process, does not necessarily result in >>> standardization of HTML being advanced. If the editor does >>> not agree with a change to HTML decided by the working group >>> its only applied to the W3C HTML5 spec [1]. >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#is-this-html5? >>> >>> regards >>> Stevef >>> >>> On 28 March 2012 11:35, Steve Faulkner >>> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com <mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Timeline of an issue: this is an example of a >>> re-ocurring pattern [1] >>> Over a 5 month period, feedback and input was called >>> for, a detailed proposal was provided - total silence >>> ensued, after the process is complete the editor >>> comments on IRC. >>> I suspect while this change will be applied to the W3C >>> HTML5 but not to the WHAT WG, resulting in further >>> divergence between the 2 specs and further dilution of >>> standardized authoring advice (in this case). >>> >>> Timeline of an issue: >>> >>> **Bug 14937* >>> <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937> >>> -Replace poor coding example for figure with multiple >>> images opened: 2011-11-25 21:20:52 UTC >>> >>> * editor rejects >>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c1 >>> <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c1%20>2011-12-07 >>> 23:01:38 UTC >>> >>> Status: Rejected >>> Change Description: no spec change >>> Rationale: This isn't an antipattern. It is a best >>> practice. If current ATs >>> don't make it accessible, then I recommend >>> approaching AT vendors and >>> explaining to them that they're not properly >>> exposing HTML semantics. >>> >>> * feedback provided on rejection: >>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c2 >>> >>> * No further response from editor >>> >>> * escalated to issue: Issue 190 >>> <https://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/190> >>> 2011-12-08 10:27:42 UTC >>> >>> * I submit a proposal >>> <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle_captions>: >>> January 18th, 2012. >>> >>> * Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or >>> Counter-Proposals >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0127.html> >>> Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:42:45 >>> >>> * NO counter proposals or feedback on proposal >>> >>> * CfC: Close ISSUE-190 coding-example by Amicable >>> Resolution >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0463.html>issued >>> Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:23:27 >>> >>> As we have received no counter-proposals or >>> alternate proposals, the >>> chairs are issuing a call for consensus on the >>> proposal that we do have. >>> >>> If no objections are raised to this call by March >>> 7th 2012, we will >>> direct the editor to make the proposed change. If >>> anybody would like to >>> raise an objection during this time, we strongly >>> encourage them to >>> accompany their objection with a concrete and >>> complete change proposal. >>> >>> >>> * No responses to CFC >>> >>> * Chairs issue: Working Group Decision:Close ISSUE-190 >>> coding-example by Amicable Resolution >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0731.html>Mon, >>> 26 Mar 2012 >>> >>> Commenst by editor on IRC: 2012-03-28 (it appears that >>> this is the first time the editor has looked at the >>> proposal) >>> >>> 1. # >>> <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-15> >>> [00:16] <Hixie> >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle_captions#Details >>> >>> 2. # >>> <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-16> >>> [00:16] <Hixie> really? >>> 3. # >>> <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-17> >>> [00:17] <Hixie> we're actually going to put an >>> example in the spec _encouraging_ nested figures? >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-192 >>> title-attribute by Amicable Resolution >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0558.html> >>> /(Tuesday, 20 March)/ >>> * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-188: >>> generic-track-format by Amicable Resolution >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0557.html> >>> /(Tuesday, 20 March)/ >>> * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-187 >>> validity-stability by Amicable Resolution >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0556.html> >>> /(Tuesday, 20 March)/ >>> * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-182 >>> footnote-recommendation by Amicable Resolution >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0555.html> >>> /(Tuesday, 20 March)/ >>> * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-179 av_param by >>> Amicable Resolution >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0554.html> >>> /(Tuesday, 20 March)/ >>> * Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-170 >>> rel-uri-valid by Amicable Resolution >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0553.html> >>> /(Tuesday, 20 March)/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> with regards >>> >>> Steve Faulkner >>> Technical Director - TPG >>> >>> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | >>> www.HTML5accessibility.com >>> <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> | >>> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner >>> <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner> >>> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives >>> - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ >>> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/> >>> Web Accessibility Toolbar - >>> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html >>> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> with regards >> >> Steve Faulkner >> Technical Director - TPG >> >> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | >> www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> | >> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner> >> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - >> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ >> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/> >> Web Accessibility Toolbar - >> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html >> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html> > > > > > -- > with regards > > Steve Faulkner > Technical Director - TPG > > www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | > www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> | > www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner> > HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - > dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/> > Web Accessibility Toolbar - > www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 13:50:26 UTC