- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:06:51 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Hi Sam and everyone, Sam wrote: > Just an observation, but the current status of ISSUE-30 longdesc is that > this was already reopened, Yes. That is very much appreciated. Thank you. > and that people are actively working on > improving the Change Proposal. Thanks to all who have helped in this effort. We have been trying our best. Ideas from everyone to improve the longdesc change proposal [1] and spec text [2] are most welcome. Leif has recently been instrumental in contributing a tenth use case. http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html If anyone has ideas to improve that or any of the others, please let us know. > As to ISSUE-32 table-summary and ISSUE-142 poster-alt, I encourage > everybody to read the "Revisiting this Issue" sections in both decisions: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0690.html Good advice, Sam. Maybe the text alternative team could start on a plan to address those points. Judy seems to have that on the docket for the first text alternative team meeting. If people think that there are errors in the initial decisions, it would be good to document those too. > On the other hand, I can speak authoritatively on this: providing the > information that the chairs requested, if found to be complete, would > result in the issue being reopened, and no FO would be necessary. Thank you. I noticed that over the weekend you added a comment to the Decision Policy Bug number 11447, which is titled, "Please document in the decision policy the procedure for reopening an issue". Your comment says: "While this may need wordsmithing, we should also add something along the effect of: "lacking refutation or additional new information, this new information and proposal would likely have been enough to materially change the decision" to the policy. Any lower bar would not be a productive use of the Working Group's time." http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11447#c4 Does the longdesc new information meet this bar? Thank you. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc#Details -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 12:07:21 UTC