- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:41:56 -0500
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Paul, I wrote: >>>> Including an attribute or element in HTML5 is a SEPARATE issue than >>>> modifying an attribute or element after a decision to include it in >>>> the spec has been adjudicated. Sam wrote: >>> There is no such separate issue being tracked for HTML5, and we are >>> past last call. I wrote: >> That is a very sad state of affairs. Would the Chairs consider >> opening such an Issue due to the circumstances? Paul wrote: > The WG Chairs have no mechanism for opening up such a new issue. 1. Go to: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open 2. Select: "Raise an issue" Paul wrote: > There is no Last Call bug that we could associate such a new issue > with and the date for the creation of issues for the current Last Call > has passed. Sam opened Issue 204 with no last call bug. I ask you Paul, how in the world can a person file a bug to modify/expand an attribute if that attribute is obsolete? If the Chairs had decided the reopened ISSUE-30 pre-last call as I asked last well over a year ago or expedited it as promised during last call as you promised last year, bugs could have been filed within your timeline, and this would not be a problem now. But the Chairs declined to decide it pre-last and did not expedite it as promised during last call. The Chairs are in charge of the issue schedule and polling; I'm not. I have tried my best to work in good faith within the WG process. For reference: = History of the Issue = August 21, 2010, Sam Ruby said: "...If you have new facts to bring forward, you may do so at any time." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0222.html November 30, 2010, Sam Ruby said: "Our position has always been that we are seeking a description of what problems longdesc solves, and a description of how longdesc makes things better." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0299.html November 30, 2010, I asked Sam: "I have been gathering documentation. It is just a matter of if it will be productive to try to reopen ISSUE-30 or more efficient go straight to a Formal Objection. Your advice?" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0298.html November 30, 2010, Sam Ruby replied, "I do not recommend that you proceed directly with that information directly to the Director. My advice is that that information, when it is deemed to be complete, be presented to the HTML WG on public-html." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0300.html It was repeated that there was no rush to ask for longdesc to be reopened PRE-Last Call: * December 1, 2010 Paul Cotton said: "...there is no rush to make this request." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0026.html * January 6, 2011 Mike Smith said: "... don't have any particular time-pressure to follow up with new info" http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-html-a11y-minutes.html#item04 21 February 2011, because of Sam's November 30, 2010 response to me instead of filing a Formal Objection I asked for ISSUE-30 to be reopened: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0362.html March 2, 2011, the HTML Chairs reopened HTML-ISSUE-30: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Mar/0015.html The request to decide the issue PRE-Last Call was denied by the HTML Chairs. May 16, 2011, the accessibility task force endorsed my proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0170.html May 25, 2011, in the "Responses to Last Call survey objections" the HTML Chairs promised to EXPEDITE the processing of ISSUE-30 during Last Call: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0347.html April 3, 2012, accessibility task force consensus continues to support reinstating longdesc as fully conforming: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0003.html To date the HTML Chairs have not expedited the issue. ISSUE-30 is still open and undecided. Due to the HTML Chairs delays, I again ask Paul, please reconsider opening an issue to expand longdesc. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Would the Chairs' consider opening such an Issue due to the circumstances? > > The WG Chairs have no mechanism for opening up such a new issue. There is no Last Call bug that we could associate such a new issue with and the date for the creation of issues for the current Last Call has passed. For reference see the Last Call timeline [1] and the timetable for re-opening issues [2]. > > /paulc > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0315.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0099.html > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:09 AM > To: Sam Ruby > Cc: Leif Halvard Silli; Maciej Stachowiak; Paul Cotton; HTML Accessibility Task Force; public-html@w3.org > Subject: Re: hypothetical question on longdesc > > Hi Sam, > >>> Including an attribute or element in HTML5 is a SEPARATE issue than >>> modifying an attribute or element after a decision to include it in >>> the spec has been adjudicated. >> >> There is no such separate issue being tracked for HTML5, and we are >> past last call. > > That is a very sad state of affairs. Would the Chairs' consider opening such an Issue due to the circumstances? > > Best Regards, > Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 20:42:25 UTC