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

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

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:40:05 -0700
To: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "'LWatson@PacielloGroup.com'" <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>, <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Cc: <public-pfwg@w3.org>, <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <075d01cfe7c5$2c241710$846c4530$@ca>

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.


> -----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 15:41:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:29 UTC