W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > October 2014

Re: request a heartbeat publication of HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:59:36 -0400
Message-ID: <543D4868.7070308@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 10/14/2014 11:40 AM, John Foliot wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> My over-arching concern at this time is that the document at
> https://w3c.github.io/alt-techniques/ does not have any date information
> attached to it - it could be last updated yesterday, or 2 years ago. If we are
> discussing "publishing" this document as a Heartbeat document (as has been
> requested), then I would think we need an identifier for that "publish" - I
> accept that Steve is (may be?) still working on the latest document on github,
> but it seems quite silly to call an undated document a heartbeat publication,
> as I and others would have no idea when that heart actually was beating.
>
> Therefore, I support the publishing of a DATED document as a Heartbeat
> Publication, but object to calling an un-dated document anything other than an
> un-dated document.

Perhaps this will help.  Here is a log of commits:

https://github.com/w3c/alt-techniques/commits/master

Here is a way to reference a stable snapshot:

https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/alt-techniques/955c8e6/index.html

Note the "955c8e6" references a specific commit.  You can find the 
number associated with a commit by going to the first link.

If/when a heartbeat is published, the date will be a part of the content 
and a part of the link.

> JF

- Sam Ruby

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: chaals@yandex-team.ru [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 3:21 AM
>> To: LWatson@PacielloGroup.com; public-html-admin@w3.org
>> Cc: public-pfwg@w3.org; public-html-a11y@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: request a heartbeat publication of HTML5: Techniques for
>> providing useful text alternatives
>>
>> As co-cordinator of the Task Force I would point out that there were
>> strong objections to publishing the heartbeat, given the circumstances.
>> The group therefore decided, a few weeks ago, to produce a new draft
>> and try to publish that.
>>
>> Those circumstances included an expectation that the longdesc decision
>> would have been handed down some time ago, that new editors would have
>> been named, and that a new proposed draft would have been available.
>>
>> None of those things has happened, and there have been increasing calls
>> to publish the existing version. This suggests the Task Force should
>> reassess its decision, either agreeing to a clear alternative or
>> changing the decision in light of the fact that the assumptions
>> underlying it turned out to be false.
>>
>> As well as co-cordinator, I am the only representative of Yandex
>> participating in this group.
>>
>> With my Yandex hat on, we want to see an update to the current Working
>> Draft as soon as possible.
>>
>> We don't really care if it is the current version since this is a
>> Working Draft and (according to the Process and presumably the Status
>> of the Document) doesn't claim to represent consensus even of the group
>> publishing. I note that publication of a 'heartbeat' Working Draft is
>> an administrative decision and does not, according to the Process,
>> require the consensus that is necessary for something that claims to
>> accurately represent the consensus of the Working Group.
>>
>> We would prefer to see something with longdesc included, but don't
>> think the continued wait serves any useful purpose.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>> 13.10.2014, 12:03, "Léonie Watson" <LWatson@PacielloGroup.com>:
>>> TPG supports the publication of a heartbeat working draft for the
>>> following
>>> reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. It will provide a clear point of reference for the guidance as it
>>> stands. The future of longdesc remains to be determined. It would
>>> therefore be more confusing for this document to include longdesc
>>> advice now and for that advice to be removed (should the longdesc
>>> attribute not be returned to the HTML5 spec), than it would be for
>>> longdesc advice to be added once a decision has been made.
>>>
>>> 2. Publishing a heartbeat is a marker en-route to final publication.
>>> As David Singer said:
>>>
>>> "A heartbeat does not need to be 'ready' or 'done' or even 'fully
>>> consented to' (it is common to insert issue markers for points of
>>> contention). Indeed, we'd be going to LCWD and on from there if it
>> were done."
>>>
>>> 3.                The CFC for publication of the guidance was
>>> supported by all parties concerned [1]. Per the W3C process the
>>> document should have been published as a result. Since this has not
>>> happened it does not seem unreasonable for a heartbeat to be
>> published
>>> based on that consensus, and for the guidance to be updated once the
>>> future of longdesc is known.
>>>
>>> Léonie
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-
>> admin/2014Jun/0019.htm
>>> l
>>>
>>> --
>>> Senior Accessibility Engineer, TPG
>>> @LeonieWatson @PacielloGroup
>>
>> --
>> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 16:00:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:44 UTC