W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [media] proposed a11y TF letter on issue-152

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:58:51 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <D6F720CA-595D-4CDB-B0FC-30881FEE4153@apple.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

On Apr 20, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>> The undersigned members of the media subgroup of the accessibility task
>>>> force have agreed to withdraw proposals 1-3 in favor of proposal 4.
>>>> However, we request the following additions to be made to the proposal:
>>> I suggest we go one step further, and have me withdraw the 4th proposal as
>>> well. This would allow the issue to close without prejudice. We could then
>>> just use the normal process to update the spec to add the MediaController
>>> feature, which I would be happy to do (indeed it's already in the spec
>>> source, just currently clipped out of the W3C copy). The advantage of this
>>> is that it doesn't leave any confusion as to whether we can make changes
>>> to the spec on issues that were the subject of a formal Decision.
>>> Would anyone object to that?
>> Another benefit of this approach would be that the issue could be reopened with a fresh Change Proposal if we fail to achieve consensus on the remaining smaller points. (Though at that point, it would become a Last Call issue).
> Just trying to understand process:
> We all withdraw our change proposals, close the issue by amicable
> consensus on the MediaController feature, have those changes applied,
> and register the remaining issues as bugs? If we feel strongly about
> any of those remaining issues, we can then progress them to issues at
> a later time when sufficient discussions have been had after LC?

Yes, that would be the process, assuming no one in the HTML WG objects to the consensus resolution to resolve the issue in this manner.

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 05:59:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:54 UTC