- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 15:12:54 -0500
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Janina, I hope that this resolution is effective, but suspect that it might not be. Issues with the Spec have not stopped heartbeat releases of HTML5 in the past. Examples include alt, summary, and headers. An editor committing a change while a review (Change Proposal) is under discussion without consulting the Change Proposal's author or coming to consensus with the HTMLWG is nothing new either. For instance it happened while Issue 66 was under discussion. It has been within the editor's power to make changes to the spec on things that do not have official working group decisions. See the HTML Working Group Charter [1] and the Decision Policy [2]. The "Commit Then Review" (CTR) [3] methodology as Sam termed it [4] a year ago has been the standard operating procedure. The editor has said that he has "no intention of developing HTML5 based on consensus" [5]. But he has compiled the Decision Policy. I would suggest if the Task Force or anyone has suggestions to change/improve the HTML WG decision policy and procedure, they should file a bug with the Chairs on the process itself. If you go to Bugzilla [6], the drop down component menu contains "working group Decision Policy" (it is the last item). The policy has a number of bugs [7] reported. Two years ago it was requested that PFWG WAI review multimedia accessibility requirements [8]. I am pleased that it is now being looked into. Thank you. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html [3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0169.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jul/0359.html [6] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=HTML%20WG [7] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML+WG&component=working+group+Decision+Policy [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Sep/0421.html On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > At the regular Media Subteam teleconference on Wednesday 5 May, > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-html-a11y-minutes.html > > And also at our regular HTML-A11Y Teleconference on Thursday 6 May: > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-html-a11y-minutes.html > > I was requested to draft and circulate resolution language expressing > our concern and desire to have WEBSRT removed from HTML 5 specification > documents at this time. As Bug 9673, "Remove any reference to a specific > Time Stamp format for video captioning from the specification at this > time," has now been filed expressing this same conclusion, I have > drafted our candidate resolution in support of this bug: > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9673 > > This email provides this draft resolution and serves as our Call for Consensus on > this question. > > Please vote on this resolution via WBS at: > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20100513_cfc-websrt/ > > Comments and objections may also be logged via WBS when you vote. > > Candidate Resolution > > <begin resolution> > > We are deeply concerned that specification language is being introduced > regarding media support in HTML 5 documents > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/video.html#websrt > without consensed HTML-A11Y Task Force input while we're in the midst of > a series of focused deliberations to address exactly this issue. > > We also want to note the misunderstanding introduced into the record in > the following posting to public-html (but not to public-html-a11y): > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1128.html > where this approach was described as: "the Task Force's proposal;" > though the referenced bug reports indicate that this was not yet a > proposal of the Task Force. > > We believe input from all concerned WG members and Task Forces is > critical to expeditious and responsive specifications development, and > until we have that, we don't have consensus. It may be that we would > adopt WEBSRT as our recommendation, or as a component in our > recommendation. However, we have needed to go back to check requirements > after it became evident that these were both incomplete, and > incompletely vetted. Meanwhile, while we appreciate and solicit > proposals, a publicly accessible specification incorporated directly > into the draft HTML 5 specification documents gives the inaccurate > impression that a consensus direction has been reached when this is not > the case. > > Certainly, the WG is aware of our work in this area. We are > endeavoring to cooperate with the desire to bring HTML 5 to Last Call > this year. For unconsensed specifications to be published without our > input only exacerbates our ability to contribute critical accessibility > requirements and technology recommendations as team players in a timely > and orderly manner. > > We respectfully request the HTML-WG Chairs' assistance in unrolling > premature specification language in HTML5 document drafts. In particular > we strongly urge the WEBSRT section NOT be present in the next heartbeat > release of HTML 5. > > </end resolution draft> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 > sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net > > Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org > Linux Foundation http://a11y.org > > Chair, Protocols & Formats > Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 20:13:27 UTC