Re: ISSUE-30: longdesc "InstateLongdesc" - outlook

On Sep 10, 2012, at 18:10 , Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> John Foliot, Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:37:55 -0700:
>> Missing from this outline is the facts that:
>> a) there are actually 2 Formal Objections in place against the Issue 204
>> Decision
>> (http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html#ISSUE-204), 
>> b) one of the Formal Objections
>> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0402.html) was also
>> requested to have an Expedited Review by the Director, and that this Review
>> is in fact underway.
> 
>> Having re-read that second Formal Objection multiple times, I can see no
>> relevant passage that "rejects both proposals". 
> 
> John, 
> 
> You are harmonizing. And that ain't no good, including not for 
> yourself. I find that there is some basis for Sam's comment about the 
> second FO. You did your best in attempting to create A11Y TF consensus 
> around your change proposal. However, there were 3 other A11Y TF 
> members who, in the poll, objected - more or less strong - to both 
> options on the table,[1] including to your very own change proposal. I 
> respect those who disagree with my reading, but in my opinion, the 
> double objections in the poll are reflected in the second FO.

Indeed, one presumes that v4 was a consensus-based update of v2, which was explicitly provided by the PFWG:

see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0162.html>
> 1.)	We have a proposal authored on behalf of WAI Protocols and Formats
> WG by Cynthia Shelly:
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v2

In addition, though this email (quoted above) is dated April 18th (the original deadline), editing continued until (according to the Wiki 'last edited' dates) 26 June and 26 July for the two proposals.  Yet the chair of the PFWG (as I read it), and another member, ended up objecting to both proposals, while not providing one that they could accept:

[chair] "Additional Comment to John Foliot's Test Page:" (presumably supporting the objection from John) and "Objection: It is inappropriate to base…" (and this second objection is against the v4 proposal, which, as I say, presumably reflects an improved v2, which came from the PFWG).

[member] "I object to this statement:..." and "I object to this normative statement…"


I think the HTML chairs are basically required to choose between the proposals offered;  I have a hard time seeing how it's their fault if people had months to review and refine, or maybe even propose new, change proposals, and then end up objecting to both the ones offered. 


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 18:51:26 UTC