Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

John Foliot wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Meanwhile, the Working Group is within its rights to decline to approve
>> the publication of a working draft that contains micro-data, or to
>> insist that RDFa be included or that micro-data (or the recent change
>> to summary) be explicitly marked.
>> However, absolutely nobody has step forwarded and requested that any of
>> these be done.
> Sam,
> On July 26th, I asked the editor:
> "Meanwhile, I respectfully request that you not impose your personal
> opinion on @summary and restore it to a valid and current HTML attribute -
> retaining its existing, current status as seen in both HTML4 and XHTML1"
> [1]
> This would be in keeping with the request and guidance that was formally
> submitted to the HTML WG by the PFWG on June 3, 2009 [2]
> (I won't spend too much time on Ian's rather dismissive response to either
> request)
> And so,
> *IF* my request to return @summary to a valid conforming (non-obsolete)
> attribute - complete with the removal of accessibility guidance that tells
> authors not to use @summary (which is currently in direct contradiction
> with WCAG 2 Guidance [3][4]) - until such time as this issue is properly
> resolve, via an open and transparent process (even if that means going to
> a vote), then I will remove my objection in the interest of forward
> movement.  I have no objection to the draft specification offering other
> means of providing similar functionality, however I would suggest that in
> the interest of accessibility that the editor is not the proper person to
> provide opinionated guidance on which method is "best" - accessibility is
> the W3C chartered domain of WAI and the PFWG.
> You say that nobody has stepped forward?  I just did.


1) I will continue to ask you to reconsider the following objection:

2) The way I would prefer to proceed with issues like this is for people 
like yourself to draft an even-toned text expressing the fact that this 
is an "open issue" (indicated in red boxes in the document, and marked 
up with class="XXX") and for the draft to be published after this has 
been added to the document.  By even toned, I mean that things like 
"unresolved" and "direct contradiction with WCAG 2 Guidance" are fine, 
but avoiding commentary such as "dismissive", "open", and "transparent".

But I will note that that is my preference, as one member of the working 
group.  Others may feel that this is not sufficient.  I will say that 
after meeting with Cynthia Shelly today, I am confident that she will be 
drafting a document for consideration by the working group, and that may 
very well be why I feel comfortable simply noting the requirement at 
this time and moving on.

> JF

- Sam Ruby

> [1 ]
> [2 ]
> [3 ]
> [4
> ture-separation-programmatic.html ]

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 02:15:30 UTC