W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2011

[Bug 13432] Editorial changes to The Video element (1 of 5)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:52:56 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R11hY-0004ZK-Bp@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #8 from John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> 2011-09-06 19:52:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (I asked John for this information by e-mail but did not get a reply.)

FWIW, I *did* reply to Ian off list on Aug 22nd, and the exchange was less than

"Political Correctness" and sensitivity to the various communities of people
with disabilities is not a binary checklist that can be applied generically by
the Editor to accessibility related discussions. However, I have reprinted a
White Paper (with permission) that was originally produced by the Active Living
Alliance a few years back that might be of some help: it can be found at

Specific to this bug, the strategies of users who are Blind (versus users who
may have any number of other vision related disabilities) as they interact with
multi-media content will often be different, based upon the single criteria of
having some vision versus having no vision, thus there is a distinction there
that should be acknowledged. 

The same is true for users who are profoundly deaf versus users who have other
types of hearing issues - once again the distinction generally being at the
point of total versus partial non-hearing. For those who are profoundly deaf,
there is also a socio-political distinction due to that community's use of sign

The proposed Editorial change in this bug has *no bearing* on the technology.
It was provided as feedback to the Accessibility Task Force media sub-team by
subject matter experts and members of the afore-mentioned communities, and
forwarded to the W3C Editor to ensure we communicate respectfully with the
various communities we interact with. What should have been a graceful
acknowledgement of some political sensitivity by the Editor, has instead become
a back-and-forth exchange over what appears to be a need to retain full
authorship of every single line of the Specification.

Can the Editor explain to the Working Group why making this editorial change is
so controversial? Is there a significant (or even trivial) impact on the
technology being addressed in this Standard that makes this change onerous?

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 19:52:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:03 UTC