Re: [text] Change proposal for @summary 2011

Hi Josh,

Thanks for getting the @summary proposal started.

Please join the text-alternatives sub-group call today if you can
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jul/0061.html
as this is the group in which we'll be discussing this proposal in detail.

Also it would be good to put [text] at beginning of subject line and 
address it to the HTML A11Y list so that it gets the relevant people 
focusing attention on it.

It needs to start with a re-open request and would be helpful to link 
to the HTML Co-Chairs' decision at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html ,
and then proceed to the change proposal. Laura's comments have 
additional information that is useful as to what kinds of information 
to include.

- Judy

At 01:33 PM 7/6/2011 +0100, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie wrote:
>Thanks Laura. Great suggestions. Am swamped right now, so everybit helps.
>
>I shall tweak. Etc
>
>Thanks
>
>J
>
>----- Reply message -----
>From: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>To: "Joshue O Connor" <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
>Cc: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Vlad 
>Alexander" <vlad.alexander@xstandard.com>
>Subject: Change proposal for @summary 2011
>Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 13:02
>
>
>Hi Josh,
>
>Thanks for your work on this. A few suggestions:
>
>* Review the "Writing a Change Proposal" section of the decision
>policy [1]. Make sure that the text that you have written for the
>required four components of a Change Proposal are in line with the
>definitions for them. They currently don't seem to be. For instance
>consider changing the details section of the new summary proposal to
>take the form of a set of specific edit instructions or better yet
>provide HTML5 spec text so that it cannot be misinterpreted. The
>current Impact and Details sections seem more fitted for the Rationale
>section.
>
>* Per the reopening section of decision policy [2] specifically point
>out what material in the proposal is new information relevant to the
>Chairs initial decision. Their table summary decision [3] gave three
>examples of new information that would be acceptable. They were:
>identification of specific use cases, first hand statements from
>authors of development tools, and identification of specific
>operational problems with the aria-describedby. Does this new proposal
>address any of those? If so, say so in no uncertain terms. If not,
>state what is new. If the proposal doesn't have new information, HTML
>ISSUE-32: table-summary is unlikely to be reopened.
>
>*  Vlad Alexander is an author of a development tool who provides a
>first hand statement in a new blog post [4]. This is new information
>which could help to reopen the issue and reinstate @summary. Consider
>using this evidence.
>
>* If there is a use case for extending @summary [4] to provide a
>verbose table description consider longdesc.
>
>* It seems that the table summary proposal was placed on the existing
>"Category:Table Summary" page. The directory for HTML change proposals
>at:
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/
>Consider add yours there.
>The index page is:
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals
>
>Hope some of this helps.
>
>Best Regards,
>Laura
>
>[1] 
>http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html#escalation-step-2b
>[2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html#reopening
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0092.html
>[4] http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/aria-for-content-doomed/
>[4] 
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Category:Table_Summary#Extending_.40summary.3F

Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 15:26:48 UTC