Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document

Hi Sam,

On Aug 16, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Item #3 begs the question as to whether or not the current proposal  
> in Ian's Editor's Draft is the result of consensus.  It also  
> presumes that invalidating one spec by another is not best practice,  
> something that the current HTML5 draft does in a number of occasions.
> And the suggestions above (and by that, I mean the whole list: items  
> 1 through 5) would seem like a more credible proposal if you could  
> point to a consolidated place where the current differences between  
> the CG Consensus Resolution and the HTML Working Draft have followed  
> the above procedure.
> Steven Faulkner posted a resolution.  I will note the following  
> responses:
> 1) Ian Hickson[1][2]: "I don't understand"
> 2) Maciej Stachowiak [3][4][5]: "The material differences ... are"
> 3) Henri Sivonen [6]: "the following procedure should be followed"
> Between the three of you, nobody has provided any feedback on the  
> resolution itself.  Collectively, you are suggesting a burden of  
> proof that you are not ready, willing, and able to meet yourselves[7] 
> [8].

I'd like to give my feedback in the form of recommending changes to  
the current HTML5 draft to be more in line with this proposal.

To do that, I need to first understand clearly what the Resolutions  
document is asking for. And I want to help the supporters of this  
document understand which aspects are already satisfied by the HTML5  
draft. I believe I have demonstrated a capacity to expand  
understanding among people who disagree, given sufficient discussion.

I don't see how trying to better understand the document constitutes  
an unreasonable burden of proof. Nor do I see how it will help us  
achieve consensus for you to interfere with the process of mutual  
understanding. Would it be better if I just decided for myself what  
the document means, without asking for confirmation or clarification?


Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 23:21:30 UTC