- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:12:00 -0400
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Steven Faulkner wrote: > hi maciej > a document that may be relevant is the charter [1] of the protocols and > formats working group > > "The mission of the *Protocols and Formats Working Group* (PFWG > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/>) (Member Confidential PFWG > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/>) is to increase the support for > accessibility in Web specifications. This mission flows from the W3C > mission of promoting universal access and interoperability > <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/> across the Web. " > > "The PFWG's scope of work includes: > > * Assuring the accessibility qualities of the technologies as > specified in W3C Specifications" > > > > So it is not like the other working groups you cite, as its main goal > involves ensuring the accessibility of the technologies of other > specifications. > > I agree wholeheartedly that the PF or anybody else should be demanding > changes, at the same time the PF has a legitimate purview to review all > specifications produced by the W3C and provide advice on the apsects of > the specifications that affect accessibility. > > the PF can make rcommendations if those recommendations are not accepted > by individuals in the working group such as yourself or the editor, but > are accepted by other members such as myself, then further discussion is > warranted, if this discussion does not result in consensus, then a vote > on the issue can be requested. > > All normal and legitimate W3C working group process as far as i understand. > > If the PF is not satisfied with the outcome and consider it of > sufficient importance then they can lodge a formal objection at last > call as can other working groups or individuals. Though a better outcome > would be if the 2 groups work together to resolve any outstanding issues > before last call, which I think is what lauras document was seeking to > formalise. > > Now whatever process is used, there are 2 outstanding accessibility > related issues that I will consider lodging formal objections on. > 1. canvas accessibility > 2. the image section content related to alt. > > myself and others, both inside and outside the html and PF working > groups are working to resolve these issues. It is my hope that before we get to the formal objection stage that there be a concrete and complete counter-proposal for people to evaluate. It is my belief that you are working on doing exactly that, and should you do so, I will support you in any way that I can. > regards > stevef - Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 16:12:43 UTC