- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:56:24 +1100
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:37 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: > 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 There as also support for Option 1 and Eric supported a variant, which should become option 8. That makes it 5 options and we still haven't heard out all the stakeholders. If we submit 5 change proposals, then two get accepted, and in next months we have, say, 2 more new ones appear of which the browsers decide to implement, say, one, then I worry that we have made a WG decision that is not supported by a browser/reality and that may inhibit progress rather than support it. Instead, I would prefer to delay proposals, but absolutely continue discussions. I'd be more than keen to discuss options 1,2,3,7 and 8 in this week's call. But I think realistically we will not be in a position to make a decision. I honestly did not expect this issue to turn up such a large interest in this many groups of the W3C. In summary, I'd be happy to turn this into a last call issue, but this should of course be something we discuss and decide on the call this week. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 00:00:37 UTC