+ Robin to ensure he sees this thread > Once the information has been gathered though, we'd be in a position to move the bug over to 5.1 and continue the discussion during the expected lifecycle of the spec. What would happened if the TF decides to NOT reopen the bug? /paulc Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 From: Léonie Watson [mailto:lwatson@paciellogroup.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:23 PM To: Paul Cotton; rubys@intertwingly.net; mjs@apple.com; public-html-admin@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' Subject: Re-opening accessibility bugs Sam, Maciej & Paul, The HTML A11y TF has been processing bugs that were filed against the 5.0 spec, and which were subsequently marked resolved needsInfo/wontFix. We've come across a handful that we believe are still relevant, and would welcome your help in agreeing the best way to take things forward. We're talking about perhaps a dozen bugs. We still have more to process, but based on our experiences to date we don't anticipate that this number will rise too dramatically. We don't want to hold up the current CR, and don't believe that any of the bugs we've identified so far warrant being re-opened against 5.0 in any case. We would like to re-open them against 5.1, but also realise that the onus is on the TF to provide the additional information requested, or to provide reasonable grounds for re-opening those marked wontFix. There was some discussion about the best approach to take on the TF call today: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/27-html-a11y-minutes.html One proposal is for the TF to move the bugs in question to the HTML A11y TF component in bugzilla. This would clear them from each of the legacy components they're currently logged against (Pre-LC1, LC1 etc.), but without moving them into the 5.1 component before it would be appropriate to do so. We don't want to push these bugs back to the editors until we can provide some tangible information for them to consider. Once the information has been gathered though, we'd be in a position to move the bug over to 5.1 and continue the discussion during the expected lifecycle of the spec. Thanks for your input on this. Léonie. The Paciello Group.
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 18:31:08 UTC