RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I think it's reasonable for you to pursue these requests. Do you find
> the current Editor's Draft to be more objectionable on these points
> than the last published Working Draft?


> The previous working draft made
> summary="" entirely nonconforming, and contained accessibility advice
> on table descriptions contrary to WCAG2. I could understand holding
> publication if the Editor's Draft had gotten egregiously worse on some
> particular point, from your point of view. 

But that's the whole point, it has gotten "egregiously worse [1]".  

A few days after the publication of the April 29th Working Draft (May 4th
to be precise), a specific request was made to the WAI PFWG asking for
input surrounding this issue [2].  Janina's response on June 4th on behalf
of PFWG [3] was ridiculed and dismissed by many within the closer ranks of
the authoring group, Ian bickers back in forth with her, and then,
completely out of the blue 'decides' that he will make @summary conforming
but obsolete, and further encroaches upon WAI WCAG territory by directly
contradicting the official W3C Guidance by stating that authors should not
use @summary with tables (and ultimately intimating that he knows better
than the official working group at the W3C, and goes so far as to suggest
that his desire for an accessible web is somehow purer than either that
group or myself [4]).

These actions show a complete lack of official process, protocol or
respect, and instead signals an approach completely out of control
(Benevolent Dictator indeed).  That might fly at WHAT WG, but in my
opinion there is no room for that at the W3C and so my objections are base
as much on this lack of respect as anything else.  The current draft is
worse off, as it has been modified since April 29th based purely upon
Ian's ego and opinion, and not by consensus or protocol. The discussion
around @summary remains clearly undecided and likely to go to vote[5], and
the next Working Draft needs to reflect that fact.

> But I don't see the point
> of delaying publication if things are no worse (and arguably a bit
> better) than the last Working Draft.

OK, you don't see the point.  I am sure others do however, and I have had
that confirmation relayed to me by others in private correspondence.

Maciej also wrote:
> However, John's requests are currently couched as requests to change
> Ian's draft before it can be published. And your poll option #4 seems
> to be phrased that way too (although as I pointed out, it's not
> entirely clear what that option calls for).

You are correct in your assessment - I really have no desire to branch or
fork the current work at this time, however I do want the next (and
subsequent) draft(s) to respect W3C protocol.  This includes the
acknowledgement that WAI, not HTML WG, speak definitively on Accessibility
matters [6][7], especially when it comes to techniques (signaled today by
the removal of Ian's current authoring guidance around @summary); and I
desire that the draft specification clearly indicate that no definitive
decision regarding @summary has been made at this point in time, that it
indeed remains an open action item (and *NOT* conformant but obsolete).

I can write that, or Ian can write that; if Ian writes that before Monday
then there is but one Draft as far as I am concerned and all of my
objections are withdrawn.  If Ian refuses to make these changes, then I
will release an alternative Draft for Monday that reflects these two minor
changes and we go to a vote.  The ball is very clearly in Ian's court, but
either way some form of W3C protocol and process will be invoked here.


[1 "egregious" - conspicuous; especially : conspicuously bad : flagrant |
source: ]
[2 ]
[3 ]
[4 ]
[5 ]
[6 ]
[7 If Ian or others within the HTML WG wish to affect change within the
WAI, they are welcome to contribute in those forums, including  PFWG -
there is always room for new ideas and energy there ]

Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 04:15:37 UTC