- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:08:30 -0400
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
David Singer wrote: > At 15:40 -0400 11/07/09, Sam Ruby wrote: >> 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. > > Well, in particular, Apple didn't ask for a change to the document as it > was, as we have not yet lost hope on finding consensus, which is clearly > the desirable outcome. > > Editing the document at this time has caused a huge amount of > discussion, almost entirely overlapping previous discussions, and seems > to have focused on whether, or not, Apple is or should be, exercising a > veto. I think it would be more useful to try to reach consensus. At the present time, I am not aware of anybody actually pursuing an alternative to what Ian has proposed in terms of required codecs. Unless I can find an owner for Issue-7, my intent is to (eventually) close it as resolved. >> * 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. > > I have also posted several times that I believe we need a substantive > discussion on media accessibility, and provided some suggestions. We > cannot leave this area un-addressed. Arguing about the codec (a > discussion which can be deferred without damage) and not about > accessibility (a design that will take time, take experimentation, and > take refinement) is not good use of our time, IMHO. This is a large group. Different people have different interests and can work on different aspects. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 11:09:11 UTC