W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > March 2015

Re: CfC: to publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of HTTP Form Extensions

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:55:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VnvOt4jTxcPU4WwQkGMO7hx2nDPWaGwN-XrRSpHnqdb5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
hi all,

I would like to note that of the people who have responded in the
affirmative, so far to this CfC, most are members of the HTML WG a11y
taskforce and PF and most also attended CSUN, including myself.

Second, I would like to agree with the criticism that making this
> document a joint deliverable would encumber the process. However, I
> believe we can reduce that encumbrance in half. My proposal is to allow
> concurrent CfCs where our several joint deliverables are involved, as
> well as any other consensus questions where our groups must agree


Note the new HTML WG heartbeat publication process is devoid of process
overhead and undue delay, which is why as both an editor and member of the
HTML WG/PF WG and a11y taskforce, I am strongly in favour of this spec,
which is intended to be an integral part of HTML 5.1 be published under the
HTML WG process.
--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>

On 9 March 2015 at 18:12, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Dear Paul, All:
>
> Paul Cotton writes:
> > Janina:  Can you please clarify your position on the publication of the
> FPWD of the ARIA in HTML given the feedback you have received on your
> points made in:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Mar/0029.html
>
> Certainly. Let me start with the request for more time to respond on
> this CfC.
>
> As I noted in the above referenced email, most of PF was otherwise
> engaged last week in the annual (CSUN) "Technology and Persons with
> Disabilities Conference. In particular we did very little PF business.
> All our several weekly teleconference calls last week were cancelled.
>
> For PF the week of the CSUN conference is very much like TPAC week for
> W3C. The inperson activities take most of our attention.
>
> PF is resuming its regular W3C work today. I have requested that the
> several ARIA subteams consider this CfC:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2015Mar/0008.html
>
> Second, I would like to agree with the criticism that making this
> document a joint deliverable would encumber the process. However, I
> believe we can reduce that encumbrance in half. My proposal is to allow
> concurrent CfCs where our several joint deliverables are involved, as
> well as any other consensus questions where our groups must agree:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Mar/0054.html
>
>
>
> >
> > /paulc
> >
> > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> > Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 3:44 PM
> > To: Sam Ruby
> > Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: CfC: to publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of HTTP
> Form Extensions
> >
> > I have a few requests here.
> >
> > 1.)   I would like to see some statement in the Status Section that
> > ties this stand alone document to the overall HTML spec, that explains
> how this is the newly agreed modularization of what was formarly the
> monolithic HTML 5.0 spec. To me this is a matter of contextualizing.
> Lastly for now, let me note that ARIA continues in active development.
> We are actively working on a next revision to the ARIA specification; we
> are providing explicit user agent mappings guidance; and we are
> actively developing authoring guidance. I believe we would all agree
> that we should take the trouble to ascertain that our various
> publications all agree--that we aren't saying something in one place,
> and something somewhat different somewhere else. I believe this is our
> joint interest in the quality of our work.
>
> I believe it's also a good part of the reason why every other document
> that directly concerns topic of mutual interest between PF and HTML-WG
> is perforce a joint deliverable. Where ARIA in HTML to proceed as an
> HTML-WG document alone, it would form the sole exception to the
> established process.
>
> In summary I believe we need to continue to rely on the HTML-A11Y Task
> Force as the vehicle for assuring the smoothest possible interaction
> between our two WGs.
>
> Janina
>
>
> >
> > 2.)   Now that the ARIA portions of HTML are celled out into a
> > stand-alone module, I would suggest we should also make this document a
> joint HTML & PF deliverable, via the TF. My primary interest is to a.) make
> sure we get regular review in PF's ARIA subteam; and b.) assure the public
> that we're coordinating.
> >
> >       I would note that PF put a lot of work into negotiating ARIA in
> >       the HTML 5.0 spec with the HTML-WG, so I don't feel this is
> actually a new
> >       request.
> >
> >
> >       3.)     The large majority of PF's ARIA team members are heavily
> >       engaged in the weeklong CSUN conference this week. There's very
> >       little opportunity for  them to review this FPWD by the 11th.
> >       Would a week's extension be acceptable;?
> >
> >       tia
> >
> >       Janina
> >
> > Sam Ruby writes:
> > > This is Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a first public working
> > > draft
> > > (FPWD) of ARIA in HTML:
> > >
> > > http://rawgit.com/webspecs/html-aria/master/index.src.html?specStatus=
> > > FPWD;publishDate=2015-03-11;wg=HTML%20Working%20Group;wgURI=http://www
> > > .w3.org/html/wg/;wgPublicList=public-html
> > >
> > > This CfC is in response to a request from the Editor[1] of the
> > > specification.
> > >
> > > If anyone needs an extension feel free to request one, and specify
> > > both a reason for the request and how long you feel you need.
> > >
> > > Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> > > responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Tuesday March
> > > 10th, this resolution will carry.
> > >
> > > - Sam Ruby
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Mar/0002.ht
> > > ml
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka, Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
> >                       sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> >               Email:  janina@rednote.net
> >
> > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:     http://a11y.org
> >
> > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> > Chair,        Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> >       Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>                         sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>                 Email:  janina@rednote.net
>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,  Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>         Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 March 2015 18:56:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:30 UTC