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

Re: ISSUE-30: longdesc "InstateLongdesc" - outlook

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:03:30 -0400
Message-ID: <504E4792.8030509@intertwingly.net>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 09/10/2012 03:37 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> Matt May wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to ask someone with enough patience to strip out the 2% of
>> John's post that may be considered questionable to attempt to address
>> the remaining 98% of it, which offered salient points to counter
>> multiple assertions of the chairs. Maciej's message is not a response,
>> and it needs not to be the end of the thread.
>
> After taking the weekend to regroup and chill out, I will take a stab at
> that Matt:
>
> 1) The Chairs are contemplating removing all of ARIA from the current HTML5
> specification:

Let me give you a broader perspective:

In my previous email, I described a PFWG member who is reluctant to 
participate given your tendency to flame.

I'll describe another PFWG member.  It is entirely unfortunate that I 
can only know about their position through back channel communications. 
  This person opposes the Formal Objections to 204.  This person 
believes in Modularity, and believes that ARIA should be split out from 
the HTML specification in order to allow it to progress at a different pace.

This person has to date not felt comfortable sharing either opinion to date.

I will add that the Director's opinion on Modularity is well known:

   http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Modularity.html

I will add that the last official position I know of from PFWG on this 
matter:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0962.html

(hint: search for "document")

In that context, the chairs asked for that effort to be scoped.

Now I don't know if you participated in that 2009 discussion that lead 
up to the published PFWG position on the matter.  It is also possible 
that you since changed your mind.

Neither of those possibilities bother me.

What I truly don't know is whether or not you can participate civilly in 
a discussion on this matter.

Our experience is that you are civil when talking 1-on-1 on a phone. But 
your demeanor changes when you get near a keyboard with a wide audience. 
  That's why Maciej offered to talk to you directly.  We want your 
participation.  What we don't want is to allow that participation to 
continue when it has proven to exclude others from participating.

That is also why I am replying on www-archive instead of on either 
public-html or the public-html-a11y mailing lists.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 20:04:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:57 GMT