- From: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:04:31 -0700
- To: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Sep 24, 2010, at 3:25 AM, Martin Kliehm wrote: > On 24.09.2010 09:05, Janina Sajka wrote: >> Or, should we undertake first redrafting these sections to remove the >> technology specific references ourselves? > > I would prefer that the Media sub-team redrafts it, > I would strongly prefer that the media sub-team *NOT* redraft it because the current text doesn't need much revision, and because it will take substantially longer than it will take the editor (we don't have experience with the tool chain, are likely to produce something that requires further work to match the spec language, etc, etc). If the text inserted into the spec has problems, we will note them in the bug used to request this edit. > because I believe they are less biased concerning technologies, > I very much doubt this, the sub-team has members with many different backgrounds. Some members are probably more biased about technologies (speaking personally), and some are *certainly* more biased about accessibility solutions. > less tempted to spec yet another TT format, > We are asking to have two sections of the WhatWG spec moved as-is to the W3C spec, and one section moved after editing to make it technology neutral. Where is there room in this request to "spec yet another TT format"? How are snide comments helpful to this discussion? > and more likely to choose a solution that is fully accessible and has wide support in different browsers so that a maximum group of users will benefit. > We aren't asking to have the editor "choose a solution". The WhatWG spec has the solution we believe is likely to be supported by browser vendors and benefit users. Have you read the spec section we are talking about? eric
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 15:05:12 UTC