- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:59:17 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <55687cf80907130259v308a1862k64f539b402d9d68f@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Sam, you wrote: >* Second, we have Steven Faulkner who in Thursday's call[9] > indicated that he was intending to draft a spec, presumably > addressing accessibility issues including alt text and summary > attributes. I'm hopeful that this will ultimately address ARIA. What I have agreed to do is draft alternative versions of some sections of the spec: at the current time it is intended to redraft the: 4.8.2 The img element ( http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-img-element) in reference to the WAI consensus document advice ( http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5) my inital thoughts are to remove the section 4.8.2.1 Requirements for providing text to act as an alternative for images<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#alt> from the spec and reformulate as a W3C best practice note, referencing it from 4.8.2 The img element along with relevant references from WCAG 2.0. I am also intending to review the 4.9.2 The table element section http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-table-element in relation to summary. I don't know at this point what if/anything will be changed. sam ruby wrote: > I'm hopeful that this will ultimately address ARIA. So am I, but honestly don't know where to start, may attempt something to get the ball rolling. *Note:* HTML WG memebers cynthia shelly, matt may and laura carlson were also on the HTML WG call and agreed to work with me on the above. regards stevef 2009/7/11 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> > Shelley Powers recently made a good faith effort to create a Formal > Objection[1]; however, to date I have not found a way to treat it as such. > The concern is certainly valid, but we need to find a process for dealing > with the issue, and this post is a part of the process for determining the > process. > > The concern is that Ian made a decision to remove two subsections[2] in his > draft HTML5 spec in which codecs would have been required and that such a > decision was widely viewed as a decision by the W3C. It was not, in fact, a > decision by the W3C, and as such it is not a subject to a Formal Objection. > But I can't escape the fact that the perception exists, and is widely > held[3]. > > Before proceeding, I wish to compliment Ian for making a decision. This is > not a topic with obvious answers. On one hand, I believe that marketplace > should sort out the codecs situation. On the other hand I do not believe > that the current draft contains enough information by itself to ensure > interop. > > Ian also took the opportunity to provide some insight[4] into his decision > making process. In doing so, he created an impression that he did so as > Apple exercised a unilateral veto. I believe that such an impression is > unfortunate, counter-productive, and not in line with my understanding of > either W3C or WHATWG processes. In particular, I actually believe that the > accepted goal of the WHATWG was two complete and bug-free implementations in > 2022[5]. I do not believe that Apple's participation is required to meet > that goal. In particular, I believe that there are at least three > implementations today which could form the basis for meeting that goal, with > required codecs, namely the browsers produced by Mozilla, Google, and Opera. > Nor do I believe that Ian has talked to anybody who can say with absolute > certainty what Apple will or will not support by 2022, as I don't believe > that such a person exists. > > That still leaves the matter of the public impression. I will start by > saying that I feel no compelling need[6] to correct the impression at this > time. I believe that the correct way to address the mis-impression that the > W3C Working Group has made a decision is to actually make a Working Group > decision. Meanwhile, I am posting this publicly, both on my blog and on > public-html. I harbor no illusion that it will be sufficient to correct the > misunderstanding. If anybody feels so inclined, feel free to refer people > to this. > > For the Working Group to make a decision, we need something concrete to > express an opinion on. Which means that we need some text, be it some sort > of resolution or (my personal preference) some concrete spec text. My > reasons for preferring the latter is that spec text is both more durable and > less ambiguous than resolutions. I'm particularly skeptical about > resolutions that take the form of "I think that somebody (other than me) > should do the following" in general, and "make the editor do this (against > his better judgement)" in particular. > > At the present time, we (nominally) have two editors[7]. This has been a > continuing source of controversy, but overall has served us well, at least > to get us to this point. It may, however, very well be the case that this > is not the model that will get us to Last Call and beyond. We now seem to > have at least three individuals who have made significant efforts to work > within this system, and now feel that producing a document themselves may be > a more productive use of their time: > > * We have Rob Sayer[8] who, as I understand it, is not satisfied > with the codec decision, feels that the current draft contains > inventions that would be premature to standardize at this time, > and feels that the spec contains a number of places where it > places burdensome limitations on authoring behavior without > sufficient corresponding benefits to browser vendors. > > * Second, we have Steven Faulkner who in Thursday's call[9] > indicated that he was intending to draft a spec, presumably > addressing accessibility issues including alt text and summary > attributes. I'm hopeful that this will ultimately address ARIA. > > * Third, we have Manu Sporny who indicated[10] that he will be > producing a spec that addresses uses cases not addressed by > microdata[11] (and in particular, incorporates RDFa). > > So, ultimately, we may end up this month with four separate specifications. > If this comes to pass, we may need to adopt naming conventions like the > IETF does, like draft-author-name. If we do so, I am fully confident that > the W3C has the technical chops necessary to make this a smooth transition > via HTTP redirects. > > It is also my experience that such a situation won't last long. Some > efforts may merge, some may lose interest, and some may never make to the > point where they have a first draft ready for consideration. In fact, we > could end up determining that a benevolent dictator[12] is the worst form of > government except for all those others that have been tried (with apologies > to Sir Winson Churchill[13]). > > If, when we get to the point where we are ready to go to Last Call, a > number of competing proposals still remain, then we will have a vote. I > fully recognize that a number of people would prefer technical superiority > to win out over what they view as mere popularity contests, and these people > are certainly encouraged to cast their vote in this manner. I will simply > note that it is quite possible for two intelligent individuals with similar > backgrounds and experience can come to different conclusions when presented > with the same data. And we can all name standards that are "technically > superior" that few follow. I, for one, would rather take part in the > creation of a standard worthy of loving parody[14] by the likes of Clay > Shirky than to produce another such standard. > > Returning to Shelley's objection (even though it may not be end up being > recognized as being a Formal one), I beg her indulgence as I would like to > see how these various efforts play out in the upcoming weeks. Should one or > more succeed and/or Ian changes his position, I would hope that she would > consider voluntarily withdrawing her objection at that time. > > Meanwhile I've reopened issue 7[15]:video-codecs and opened issue > 75[16]:microsoft-review. I'll be looking for owners for those two issues. > > Related reading: authority[17], access[18], policy[19], support[20]. > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0075.html > [2] > http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html > [3] [ > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs > [4] [ > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020804.html > [5] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/TIMETABLE > [6] http://xkcd.com/386/ > [7] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html > [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0135.html > [9] [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0367.html > [10] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0067.html > [11] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0038.html > [12] > http://realtech.burningbird.net/semweb/accessibility-and-microformats/#comment-471 > [13] > http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_democracy_is_the_worst_form_of_government > [14] http://www.shirky.com/writings/evolve.html > [15] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/7 > [16] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/75 > [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0132.html > [18] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0017.html > [19] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0018.html > [20] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0019.html > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 10:00:08 UTC