W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:45:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4A889A37.2090107@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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.

No, but asking for people to justify[1] changes to a spec that has not 
yet been determined to represent consensus does.

> Nor do I see how it will help us achieve 
> consensus for you to interfere with the process of mutual understanding. 

I don't see how asking people to provide the feedback requested is 
"interfering".  And at this time, I would like to thank Henri for 
actually doing so[2].

> Would it be better if I just decided for myself what the document means, 
> without asking for confirmation or clarification?


> Regards,
> Maciej

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0828.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0834.html
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 23:46:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:54 UTC