- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, <judy@w3c.org>
- Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > > > Actually, it _is_ my place to make proposals that improve on the status > quo. Then make them to the WAI via the appropriate channels! Imposing your point of view within a Draft Document is not the appropriate place to disagree. The HTML WG is *not* the appropriate place to re-write official W3C Web Accessibility guidance, and why you believe this to be true is beyond me. > > I'm having trouble understanding what you are suggesting here. It > appears > you are asking for the following: > > * Move summary="" from "obsolete but conforming" to "fully > conforming". ...Until such time as an 'official' resolution is determined through the ongoing W3C process, which is currently tracked at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32 > > * Remove all advice regarding how tables should be made accessible. You have rephrased my request. Specifically, remove the text that tells authors not to use @summary, again until such time as this issue is properly resolved through appropriate W3C process. This text does *NOT* tell authors how to make tables more accessible, it imposes your opinion under the guise of 'specification'. > > * Add a reference to the WCAG 2.0 "Techniques" note for HTML 4.x and > XHTML 1.x. > If you feel that guidance is required inside of the HTML 5 specification, then yes - this is the current W3C sanctioned guidance, rightly or wrongly. If you have concerns or new information that causes this guidance to be questioned, then I urge you to bring this forward to the W3C and specifically the WAI. There is a process to be followed: this is not the Wild West where the man with the gun (or here editor badge) gets to re-write the rules. If you feel that you are not being heard or responded to at WAI, then I personally will ask the WAI Domain Lead, Judy Brewer (copied on the email) to investigate why there is a delay. > > I haven't made these changes. I consider disagreement with WCAG 2.0 to > be acceptable; And as a personal opinion, you are certainly entitled to that view. As an official W3C document, I respectfully disagree and I will be asking other senior W3C officials if it is indeed the policy of the W3C to have 2 official documents directly contradict each other. > accessibility guidelines evolve over time, and that's fine. > It's ok if a working draft of a new version of HTML contradicts some of > the advice that was based on the previous version of HTML, if the > contradiction is based on trying to improve accessibility based on data > collected about how the aforementioned guidance is actually working. According to whom, besides Ian Hickson? > > In conclusion, I cannot in good faith make the changes you are > requesting > at this time. If there were solid reasoning or research to back up > these > requests, then I would naturally reconsider. I believe that the reasoning of due process and W3C protocol is both solid and correct. We are not talking about the final draft, but rather a working draft, and I am simply asking that judgment of @summary, which is still an open issue, not be pre-ordained at this time. Based upon your statement however, I will be submitting an alternative draft specification Monday for consideration as the next heart-beat HTML 5 Draft Specification. I will further ask the chairs to put this to a vote within the HTML Working Group. I am sorry that it has come to this, but I cannot in good faith stand by and watch one man's opinion re-write W3C policy. Sam and Mike, I will be in direct contact with you to deliver the promised alternative Draft. JF
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 05:31:35 UTC