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

Heartbeats are always dated.  And yes, that document needs boilerplate
work.  That's why it wasn't shipped in the first place!  I could make the
changes in 5 minutes, but I don't have write access.

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40 AM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> 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.
>
> JF
>
>
>
> > -----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
>
>
>
>
>