Re: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014

Hi Paul,

Similarly, I was surprised by what is stated for Issue-194
full-transcript attribute :

    Allow the A11y TF the authority to produce an extension spec that
includes full-transcript. If such a specification obtains consensus
and meets the proposed CR exit criteria by 2014Q2 it could be folded
back into the core HTML spec at that time.

We already have two change proposals for this issue that both came out
of the a11y TF. I was under impression that the next step was a
decision by the chairs. Are you now expecting the a11y TF to decide
between the two change proposals and come up with spec text for it?

Regards,
Silvia.
(speaking as ordinary WG participant)


On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Steve Faulkner
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I noted this;
>
> "Move responsibility for the HTML5: Techniques for providing useful
> text alternatives document from the HTML WG to the A11y TF. "
>
> This is the first I have heard of this. What is the reasoning behind
> the recommendation?
>
> regards
> SteveF
>
>
> On 19 September 2012 22:33, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> The HTML Working Group has made much progress on HTML5 and related specifications. The HTML Working Group Chairs and the Protocols and Formats WG Chair have been asked by the W3C Team to provide a credible plan to get HTML5 to Recommendation status by 2014. Challenges remain in achieving this goal. We sought to produce a plan that achieves this date and that has minimal risk of delays from unexpected events.
>>
>> We'd like to now propose our draft plan [1] to the HTML Working Group for consideration. Here are the key points of our plan:
>>
>>         - Revise the draft HTML WG charter to indicate an HTML 5.0 Recommendation in 2014Q4 and an HTML 5.1 Recommendation in 2016Q4.
>>         - Use Candidate Recommendation exit criteria to focus testing where it is advisable (e.g. new features), without wasting time on testing where it is inappropriate (such as when interoperability is already proven on the Web).
>>         - Use modularity to manage the size and complexity of the specifications while reducing social conflict within a constrained timeline:
>>                 - Gain agreement that the remaining open issues can proceed via extension specifications at first. Provide an opportunity to merge extension specifications back into the baseline spec upon getting WG consensus and after the extension specifications meet their Candidate Recommendation exit criteria.
>>                 -Welcome the option of extension specifications that don't merge back at all and instead proceed at different paces and possibly even with different Candidate Recommendation exit criteria.
>>
>> We encourage discussion of this draft plan in response to this email.  We will also add this item to the respective agendas of the next meetings of the HTML WG, the Accessibility Task Force and the PF WG.
>>
>> /paulc
>>
>> On behalf of:
>> Sam, Maciej, Paul, Janina, Philippe and Judy
>> HTML Working Group Chairs, Protocols and Formats WG Chair & The W3C Team
>>
>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
>>
>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 11:45:40 UTC