Re: Path to Last Call (was closing various issues)

On Aug 23, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Hi Sam,
>> I have updates for you on some of the issues mentioned in this  
>> email which I hope you will find useful.
>> On Aug 22, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Given that you said that issue 53 would only going to take a few  
>>> hours, if it needed to be addressed at all, I don't believe that  
>>> it is on the critical path, so I'm inclined to give Maciej and  
>>> Julian a bit more time to work on it.
>> Julian, Ian and I all seem to agree that ISSUE-53 needs some form  
>> of WG decision to resolve. I have proposed a lazy consensus  
>> resolution that I hope can resolve the issue. I'm not sure Julian  
>> and I need or want time to work on it - what we need is a WG  
>> decision.
> You have proposed a lazy consensus resolution.  I've marked ISSUE-53  
> pending review.


> These are all reasonable next steps.  I would add that rationale  
> (whomever documents it) for the table in section 3.2.6 would  
> facilitate and accelerate a review.  Meanwhile, I simply maintain  
> that I do not believe that I have heard that there is a consensus  
> that ARIA integration is done.  In fact, based on my reading of what  
> you just wrote, I do not believe that you consider it done.  And I  
> further maintain that consensus that ARIA integration is done is a  
> requirement for us to reach Last Call.

I not heard any claims the ARIA integration work done so far is  
insufficient for Last Call. I'm not drawing any solid conclusions from  
this until there has been a reasonable review period. But if  
objections do not come up, from PFWG or otherwise, then I will assume  
what we have is suitable for Last Call. (Note: I reviewed the ARIA  
integration section myself and pointed out some minor issues; I did  
not see any LC blockers.)

> FWIW, recent experience has proven otherwise as to whether or not  
> email has been the optimal medium for making progress on this  
> particular item; I have no earthly idea why that is, but it is a  
> reality that we must deal with.

I think email turned out to be a poor medium for sharing understanding  
of the big-picture issues - a bit of phone conversation worked much  
better. I am hoping email will turn out to be more effective for  
working through the details, because figuring out the answers to  
dozens of low-level technical issues is not the kind of scenario where  
telecons shine.

>> May I also add, it is not clear to me why you have continued to  
>> criticize Ian on ARIA. It seems to me that he did exactly what was  
>> asked, namely incorporate ARIA and engage with PFWG on the details.  
>> And it seems like further discussion is progressing nicely. Is  
>> there anything else you think he needs to do?
> Can you point to the criticism?  I simply see a point of  
> disagreement as to whether we consider this item done.  I also  
> considered this item to be a potential bottleneck, and encouraged  
> him and others to talk directly as a way to accelerate progress.   
> And I believe I've amply thanked those that actually did talk for  
> actually doing so.

I haven't seen you thank Ian for doing the HTML5+ARIA design and  
drafting work you asked for. In light of that, your voicing of  
concerns about the process prior to that point and your insistence  
that he needs to take some action on the ARIA issue come off as  

>>> I previously asked you if you could make the call of 13 August.   
>>> For whatever reason, you did not attend.  I am now asking you if  
>>> you could work with Michael Cooper and/or Richard Schwerdtfeger to  
>>> find a mutual time in which you could participate, via phone, in a  
>>> discussion on what remains to be done to complete issue 74.  And,  
>>> yes, I am intentionally saying issue 74 as that is the one that at  
>>> this point in time looks like it has the most remaining work  
>>> needed to be done.  Issue 35 can proceed in parallel, perhaps even  
>>> exclusively over email.
>> This Friday, there was a conference call to discuss a proposal for  
>> canvas accessibility. I attended, as did Dave Singer and James  
>> Craig from Apple. I believe you were invited but for whatever  
>> reason decided not to attend. I know it can be hard to gauge the  
>> outcome of a telecon from minutes alone at times, so let me give  
>> you my own subjective view.
> This is not my area of expertise.  I asked Richard Schwerdtfeger  
> about this and he said that I was simply included on the emails "as  
> FYI". I've only ever worked at one employer, so I don't know if this  
> is common in other cultures, but as I indicated that this call was  
> important to me, including such people "as FYI" on the invite is a  
> common practice within IBM.

Canvas and accessibility APIs (at least on Mac) are among my areas of  
expertise. And I don't think adding telecon participants (either you  
or Ian) would be useful to short-term progress on this issue.

What would be useful is volunteers to try making mockups of accessible  
versions of canvas content. The prototyping methodology we are using  
is to put the alternate accessible presentation outside the canvas for  
now, since current browsers do not expose canvas content to assistive  
technologies. I'm particularly interested in volunteers who are  
already somewhat familiar with the canvas API, but anyone willing to  
get their hands dirty with some scripting and markup is encouraged to  

>> I think more input from Ian would be welcome, but is not on the  
>> critical path at this time. This assessment is based on my personal  
>> involvement with work on this issue. I have also briefed Ian  
>> privately on progress so far. And I have asked the informal group  
>> working on this if they are willing to pull in the deadline for  
>> providing a proposal to the HTML WG, to some point earlier than  
>> December.
>> If you'd like to know any more about the status of this issue, feel  
>> free to ask.
> What concerns me is that action 132 has a target date of 2009-12-17,  
> and that I do not believe that we can enter Last Call until there is  
> consensus that Issue 74 is resolved.

I agree, which is why I've asked the group working on this to pull  
back the due date for a proposal (I suggested end of September).  
Unfortunately this was on a discussion thread in private widely Cc'd  
email. I've asked that all future discussion on this topic should be  
on an archived W3C mailing list. I believe given the progress so far  
that (a) a proposal can be ready by end of September and (b) the  
proposal will likely require less than a week of drafting work to  
integrate into the spec. But perhaps others will disagree.


Received on Sunday, 23 August 2009 11:47:46 UTC