- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:59:36 -0400
- 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