- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:37:49 -0800 (PST)
- To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > I guess the problem is that there isn't really much of a disagreement > with the spec. The problem is rather that this is a new feature and > needs some serious work to analyse all the implications. I don't feel > comfortable putting forward a single one of the options as a solution > to the problem at this stage. I could make a change proposal that > could include multiple options and their advantages and disadvantages, > but having a dispute with myself doesn't seem productive towards > finding a solution. > > I guess what I am saying is that from an accessibility viewpoint we > absolutely need a solution to this problem in the spec, but the given > timeline is just not appropriate to propose an adequate solution and > the discussions have to continue across all the stakeholders. > Hi Silvia, As a thought, and as a follow up to Maciej comments, it appears at this time that we are starting to narrow down the viable options to one of 3 (Options 2, 3 and 7 AFAICT), and we can continue to discuss this on our media call Wednesday (Thursday for you). I think the Chairs are suggesting that we can submit change proposals for these three options and then continue to work on details and specifics, further refining the CPs (and even perhaps retiring one later on if that is the case). JF
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 22:38:23 UTC