My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 

> I don't see the state differently than you do, but I

> don't understand the poll options you listed enough 

> that I could make an informed decision.

 

Actually, the state as Sam described it originally has changed.  I have
submitted an alternative Draft document for consideration; one which I
believe rightly returns the role of author guidance for creating
accessible content to the W3C WAI - the group officially chartered by the
W3C to speak to these matters.  It is a question of respect.

 

 

> Specifically, 

> I don't understand if we will we just be voting on a 

> wording change, or if there a substantive change implied.

 

When submitting my alternate Draft to Sam and Mike, I include the
following notes for clarification, as I am an admitted neophyte to the
world of svn, cvs, git, etc.  I wrote:

 

Differences Summary:

 

  (regarding @summary)

1) added @summary as a conformant attribute of the table element (4.9.2.1)

2) added explanation of @summary

3) provided cautionary message that @summary is under review and may be
made obsolete (aka class="XXX")

3) added example of @summary usage

4) removed @summary from 12.1 Conforming but obsolete features

 

  (spelling correction)

5) Corrected proper spelling of Braille (now written as a formal name) at
lines 1680 and 12607

 

  (housekeeping)

6) added my name (with email contact) as an Editor to this Draft

7) modified versioning to: Revision: 1.2720-a  (This is a presumption -
Sam it will probably be necessary to provide proper instruction to others
who will be branching or forking the specification moving forward)

8) removed the text: "<p>This specification is also being produced by the
<a href="http://www.whatwg.org/">WHATWG</a>. The two specifications are
identical from the table of contents onwards.</p>" as this is of course
false.

9) removed contact information at line 238 for WHAT WG as they likely are
not interested in supporting this branch of the specification at this time

10) added mirror location of this Draft at: http://foliot.ca/html5 and
have posted to that location

 

 

*****

IMPORTANT:  Branching, forking or mirroring with minor edits the extensive
technical work established by WHAT WG to date was my least favorite
option, and I believe that I had tried, in good faith to negotiate through
the impasse to avoid having to do so.  

 

However, the current editor remains steadfast in his belief that it is
within his domain to tell W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative, and their
subject matter experts, that he knows better than them, and he continues
to insist on including authoring guidance language in the Draft Spec which
contradicts current official W3C WAI guidance.  

 

While I am in agreement that there are many ways to resolve these
contradictions, I do not believe that forcing change simply because a
single person can make edits to a Draft is the proper way to reach
resolution - it is arrogant and egotistical; it is not resolution it is
imposition. 

 

The question of the status surrounding @summary is an open question - it
is being tracked and acted upon as I write this [1].  A resolution will
emerge whether by consensus or vote, but that resolution will be arrived
at fairly, using proper etiquette, process and protocol.  The W3C is an
international organization that has far reaching ramifications and
influence - it is not some sort of boy's club where the rules are written
by the owner of the ball; this is the proper, and more importantly agreed
to, process for affecting change.  

 

The larger question here is not one of technical merit, but of philosophy.

 

 

> Not for lack of trying -- in my email discussion with John,

> I was unable to determine a substantive difference between

> "deprecated" as he understood it and the spec's current use

> of "obsolete", but he didn't say it's just a matter of word

> choice either.

 

Yes, and actually thank you Maciej for taking the time to clarify with me
the apparent differences between HTML 4/XHTML1 deprecated/obsolete and the
HTML5 meaning of obsolete.  One thing that clearly emerged via that
discussion is that these differences should be better documented to the
casual reader so that the confusion surrounding these terms is reduced.
(So +1 to some useful outcome)

 

Because of this clarification, and the insistence that obsolete be
directly linked with instruction that authors not use a particular element
or attribute, I was left with no other choice *at this time* then to
re-edit (and thus branch or fork) the Draft Specification and make the
summary attribute conformant today, so that the contradictory authoring
language could then be removed.  I would likely have been satisfied with
obsolete but conformant (per WHAT WG's definition) as a compromise
position for now *if* the direct linking of instruction *not* to use
@summary could be removed, but I respect the fact that this is not the
WHAT WG's interpretation and intent of what obsolescence means: they have
linked the two together.

 

Once the final outcome of the current open action item (Issue 32) is
resolved, I will make edits as required to my current Draft to reflect
those changes and re-submit that work to the W3C for consideration.
However, until that time, my draft is now in synch with existing WAI
authoring guidance when discussing @summary, and I have restored @summary
to its use state as witnessed in HTML4/XHTML1.

 

> 

> I'd like to request wording for the poll options that is clear

> enough for WG participants to make an informed decision.

 

To me the choice is crystal clear:

 

1) I subscribe to authoritarian imposition of opinion

2) I subscribe to due process and protocol

 

 

JF

 

 

[1 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32 ]