Re: Consolidated issues that may qualify as "controversial"

Shelley Powers wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> Based on my review of issues 1-45.
>>
>> ISSUE-1: PINGPOST - hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP method
>> ISSUE-2: PINGUI - Practicability of UI requirements for hyperlink 
>> auditing
>> ISSUE-4: html-versioning - HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs
>> ISSUE-7: video-codecs - codec support and the <video> element
>> ISSUE-27:  rel-ownership - @rel value ownership, registry consideration
>> ISSUE-30: longdesc - Should HTML 5 include a longdesc attribute for 
>> images
>> ISSUE-31: missing-alt - What to do when a reasonable text equivalent 
>> is unknown/unavailable?
>> ISSUE-32: table-summary - how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. 
>> for unsighted navigation?
>>
>> There is also a special case around ARIA:
>> ISSUE-14: aria-role - Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5
>> ISSUE-35: aria-processing - Need to define processing requirements for 
>> aria states and properties when used in html
>>
>> I believe everyone agrees that the correct resolution is to integrate 
>> ARIA, but that is currently blocked on decisions by the PFWG. I don't 
>> think it would be meaningful or productive to label this issue as 
>> "controversial", rather, the HTML WG should make a formal request to 
>> PFWG to expedite the resolution of their pending issue.
>>
>> I will put this growing list on the Wiki at some point soon. Once I 
>> get into issues that are less than 4 months old, I will start 
>> searching mailing list archives to see if they qualify.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>
> I must have missed this some where, but why exactly are you doing this? 
> And I'm not being facetious, there was a lot of email yesterday, so I 
> may have missed what this was about. I understood the issue closings, 
> but not the Wiki et al activity.
> 
> If you're covering open items that have not been resolved, then I 
> believe there are two I added yesterday (issues 76 and 77) that are both 
> open, and have not been resolved. I'm fairly sure that they're both 
> controversial, too.
> 
> How obsolete/deprecated are being handled in HTML 5 underlies much of 
> the summary discussion, and also underlies longdesc, as well as how 
> other obsoleted elements and attributes are handled.
> 
> I would say that the microdata/RDFa issue is also controversial, and we 
> know that discussion started back in April, though much of the 
> discussion was in the WhatWG.
> 
> Regardless, I'm not sure what you're doing, since we have the issues 
> list to document these items. Is it for deciding which items should be 
> included as warnings in the HTML 5 document?

At this time, I would like to second Julian's comment[1] thanking Maciej 
for doing this important work.  If the HTML-Warnings proposal in any way 
helped trigger this effort, well let me say that's alone is a positive 
outcome, independent of the results of this week's poll.

I'll have more details in my invite to tomorrow's weekly conference 
call, but executive summary: it is time to either find owners for 
abandoned items or to start closing them (without prejudice).  And, no, 
the items that you opened in the past week do not in any way qualify as 
abandoned.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0526.html

Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 13:49:13 UTC