W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > January 2016

Re: [css-flexbox] Transition Request, CSS Flexible Box Layout Level 1 to CR (updated)

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:57:00 -0500
To: fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Cc: w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, W3C Comm Team <w3t-comm@w3.org>, "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160120165700.GC8381@opera.rednote.net>
Dear Fantasai, Colleagues:

As promissed in my email below, I am hereby forwarding the APA (formerly
PF) concern with progressing the CSS Flexbox spec through to W3C TR.  We
believe there is a path to resolution, and we would hope to work with
CSS to achieve that resolution before the end of your CR on this
specification.

APA supports the concerns expressed by IBM in an email at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2016Jan/0025.html


I'm certain the concerns expressed in this email will be quite familiar.
We discussed them together most recently during our joint meeting at
TPAC 2015 in Sapporo:

http://www.w3.org/2015/10/30-apa-minutes.html


As the above minutes indicate, APA is reasonably satisfied that the
approach prototyped by Mozilla will satisfy our concerns. You'll recall
our Facebook participants mocked up a test for that during TPAC, and the
results were very encouraging.

What is missing is the next steps agreed in Sapporo--and frankly, also
agreed during TPAC 2014 in Santa Cruz. We need the "best practices"
documentation to be written, tested, and appropriately incorporated in
W3C documents before this most useful and important, yet accessibility
challenging CSS spec moves beyond CR.

Please suggest how we can move forward on this. aMy reading of the above
referenced minutes suggests CSS is understood to take the lead on this.

Best,

Janina

Janina Sajka writes:
> Thank you, Fantasai. This is very helpful info.
> 
> I will ask our APA members with concerns to state them in a few
> sentences and get back to you re next steps. I expect this will take
> until late next week to accomplish.
> 
> In any case I'm sure we can handle concerns before your May timeline.
> That was the essential bit of data for me at the current time.
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> Janina
> 
> fantasai writes:
> > On 01/04/2016 05:43 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > >Fantasai, Philippe:
> > >
> > >The APA WG is hearing concerns from some of our members regarding this
> > >module. It will probably be no surprise to hear the concerns relate to
> > >meaningful ordering. While we had a very helpful meeting during TPAC,
> > >not all of our members were represented during that meeting, so, if we
> > >properly covered this topic at TPAC, I am sure not all our people are up
> > >to speed. Or, perhaps there are additional concerns to discuss.
> > >
> > >My purpose in responding to the transition request as opposed to the
> > >published spec document is to clarify for APA the intent of this
> > >transition to CR, and the timeline expected before a possible move to
> > >PR.
> > >
> > >We looked at the Status section referenced by the Transition Request to get an
> > >idea of how soon this is expected to advance to Proposed Recommendation, or
> > >whether this CR is in fact more of a pseudo-Last Call as allowed under the new
> > >process, which impacts the decision of whether we can address issues after
> > >publication or need to assert that dependencies have not been fully met before
> > >the transition is approved. However, the status text referenced is tailored
> > >for the editors' draft, not the published version, and doesn't provide the
> > >information we need. Our understanding is that the practice for Transition
> > >Requests is that the abstract and status references must provide the
> > >publication-ready version, even though this does not appear to be explicitly
> > >clarified in the transition planning materials at
> > >https://www.w3.org/2003/05/Transitions#trans-request.
> > 
> > Hi Janina,
> > You might need to refresh your copy of the ED at
> >   https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/
> > as it looks to me to be a publication-ready CR copy of Flexbox.
> >   “This document was produced by the CSS Working Group (part of the Style
> >    Activity) as a Candidate Recommendation. This document is intended to
> >    become a W3C Recommendation. This document will remain a Candidate
> >    Recommendation at least until 31 May 2016 in order to ensure the
> >    opportunity for wide review.”
> > 
> > Flexbox *was* approved for a CR transition in the past (back in 2012),
> > however since it was under the old process we had to bring it back to
> > LCWD in order to make edits in response to feedback. We are requesting
> > a transition into the new process CR.
> > 
> > ~fantasai
> 
> -- 
> 
> Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
> 			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> 		Email:	janina@rednote.net
> 
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org
> 
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> 

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 16:58:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 20 January 2016 16:58:35 UTC