- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Lachlan Hunt'" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > A bunch of stuff that shows he skimmed my emails and didn’t really read them. Ok Lachlan, once again from the top... > > So far, it seems you've done a lot of complaining about how you claim > the draft simply reflects Hixie's own opinion, but yet don't seem to > consider it hypocritical that the draft you have proposed merely > reflects your personal opinion. Actually, it doesn't. I've not actually spoken at length about my *opinion* about @summary, but here's a hint - go back and review my *opinion* about @alt. What I've argued, from the beginning, is that in the section "12.1 Obsolete" content creators are told specifically *NOT* to use @summary. This directly contradicts WCAG @ guidance in this matter. I maintain that it is not the role of the HTML WG, and the editor in particular, to be offering this guidance, especially when it contradicts the consensus position of the W3C Group chartered to speak on web accessibility issues. Simply put, you are messing in somebody else's yard, and it is against W3C process to be doing so. If HTML WG feel that they have compelling evidence and data that suggests that the WCAG guidance needs to be reviewed and revised, there is a process for that, and it is not by running a short cut via HTML 5 Working Draft. > > Personally, it is of little concern to me in what state the summary > attribute is in the upcoming Working Draft. I believe it is more > important continue investigating the issue in terms of research and > evidence, rather than bickering about what one Working Draft, published > solely to meet the heartbeat requirement, says, and using subversive > tactics to get your way. There has been nothing subversive about what I have done. I registered my concern about this issue with the Chair, and Sam encouraged me to re-write the offending section and present it to the working group as an alternative Draft. I have done as he has requested; I have documented in clear English the changes I have made, Sam has assisted in providing a 'diff' for review, and I submitted all that I was asked to provide a full day in advance of the promised delivery date, all the while providing thousands of words worth of email correspondence over the past 72 hours in an effort to find a compromise position, and thus avoiding the need for either a vote or poll (meanwhile the WHAT WG editor refuses to re-visit the subject - simply stating "but the data shows I'm right"). I have worked within the existing process as outlined and requested, as my major beef is primarily about process; the fact that HTML WG cannot just willy nilly re-write best practices guidelines concerning accessibility - that is neither the responsibility or domain of the HTML WG. Those responsibilities at W3C rest with WAI. Further, because it has been suggested that responses have been slow in coming from WAI, I offered to try and involve the director of WAI, Judy Brewer, into the conversation, as perhaps she could help break the log jam, so to suggest that I am in some way frustrating this process is frankly an insult; I've bent over backwards to try and resolve these concerns and to find middle ground. > > > In this case, I do agree with you that we should be working with WAI to > resolve any conflicts between HTML5 and the advisory techniques from > WCAG2. Then can you also agree that until such time as that conversation has happened, and progress has been made in this regard, that it is both prudent and correct to be supportive of what we currently have, rather than to publicly disagree via competing documents? > But I believe it is the WCAG2 Tecniques note that needs to be > updated to suit the features available HTML5, rather than having HTML5 > comply with advice designed for prior versions of HTML, espeically > without irrefutable evidence that such advice really is optimal. And that may very well be, although don't discount that this existing guidance might also start to teach authors how to use @summary properly (a concept that has never been properly considered by WHAT WG). But yes, I believe that the current guidance might already benefit with an update, but that needs to be a managed transition, and it is incumbent upon the HTML WG to respect process and protocol during this phase. JF
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 05:35:30 UTC