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

Re: Draft Formal Reply (was: Draft of @summary text for HTML 5 poll)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:32:10 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270907240932y6d4526a7m1bc87de63f7d96fb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Summary:
>
> I am prepared to Formally reply, on behalf of the HTML Working Group, and to
> the Protocols and Formats Working Group, that the HTML Working Group does
> not find the "Draft of @summary text for HTML 5 poll" (cited below) to be
> the basis of something we can proceed with, but we encourage the PFWG to
> take in consideration the inputs of Laura, Shelley, and Ian (also cited
> below) and produce a second draft for consideration.
>
> If anybody disagrees with this approach, please speak up.
>
> Detail:
>
> On 3 Jun 2009, Chris and I were notified of a consensus position of the PFWG
> on the matter of @summary:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0026.html
>
> On 8 Jun, I tried to identify the issues involved.  Specifically, I asked
> the question: How do we close the gap between "downplayed error" and
> "optional but allowed"?  Especially where the browser behavior is not in
> dispute.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0289.html
>
> On 25 June, Joshue O Connor agreed to draft @summary voting (Straw poll)
> text in conjunction with PF
>
> On 7 July, Janina Sajka requested the basic human courtesy of
> acknowledgement:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0067.html
>
> And further clarified that the PFWG doesn't make formal replies to
> individuals:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0069.html
>
> I identify the failing as mine and Chris's:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0074.html
>
> I don't like making the same mistake twice, so this time I wish to formally
> acknowledge the draft, and this note is a part of that process.
>
> On 16 June, Joshue produces a first draft, and sends it to myself, copying
> Ian Hickson, Janina Sajka, and Michael Cooper.
>
> On 17 June, Joshue produces a second draft, and adds Chris Wilson, Dan
> Connoly, and Michael Smith to the copy list.  During the discussion, this
> text was identified as "PF member confidential".
>
> On 23 June, I received permission to forward the draft to the HTML Working
> Group.
>
> It is now less than 24 hours since I have done so, but it is clear to me
> that the text provided as the subject of a vote is not something that the
> HTML Working Group would find acceptable.  If others disagree, (i.e., DO
> feel that the text is suitable for use as a vote), please speak up.
>
> Meanwhile, we have at least three people who have proposed draft text:
>
> Laura Carlson:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0668.html
>
> Shelley Powers:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0677.html
>
> Ian Hickson:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0686.html
>
> During the course of the discussion, it was mentioned that the position of
> the editor has changed materially in a way germane to this topic since the
> latest published working draft.  Accordingly, I have requested that a new
> draft be published:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0706.html
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>

I made my suggestion because I felt it was important to make progress
on one simple item: the summary attribute. It was not meant as part of
a strategy, overall concept, future direction, etc. It was meant to
make progress on one simple item: the summary attribute.

I withdraw my suggestion. I am no longer sure that my suggestions are
helping, and I have no interest in adding to the general confusion
that seems to surround this particular element attribute,
accessibility in general, or how we are to proceed when it comes to
submitting alternative suggestions in the future.

So this leaves two suggestions remaining: Ian's and Laura's.

Thanks, Sam. Sorry.

Shelley
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 16:32:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC