RE: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> 
> 1) I will continue to ask you to reconsider the following objection:
> 
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0826.html

I have already indicated that I would be willing to removing my objection
based upon the criteria previously outlined. Essentially I would like to
see the Working Draft provide equal recognition of both sides of the
current open action item (Issue 32) [1] alongside any text (as you
recommend) that suggests that this is an open item. Failing to provide
this is to favor one perspective over the other.

Equally if not more importantly however, I expect to see the current
author guidance that tells authors *not* to use summary removed from the
current Working Draft while the status of @summary remains unresolved, as
this 'commentary' directly contradicts existing W3C WAI Guidance in WCAG
2, an official W3C document which "...has been reviewed by W3C Members, by
software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and
is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation." [2] 

Should the HTML Working Group (through discussion or now likely by formal
vote, but *not* by editor opinion) reach the conclusion that @summary
should be deprecated or made obsolete, then a formal process of requesting
that the W3C WAI (via PFWG) re-visit WCAG 2 to ensure harmony between the
two W3C documents should be undertaken by the HTML WG, at which time WAI
(via WCAG 2 [or 2.1?]) would likely instruct content creators to stop
using @summary in favor of a better technique. This is both the proper and
appropriate place and method of providing accessibility guidance to
developers, and is in fact the way that W3C is currently structured.  

In short, I wish to see open and due process used here, and not the
editor's enhanced ability to re-write W3C policy and specifications at his
whim, with his editorial weight being used to over-ride other W3C
endeavors and guidance that *have* followed W3C process (to the point of
Director endorsement). Ian is entitled to his opinions:

	"I'm sorry, but I actually care about improving accessibility on
the Web..." [3] 

...(is Ian suggesting here that this is not also the desire of the WAI
PFWG, who formally requested the retention of @summary as a non-obsolete
attribute?), however a W3C Working Draft is not the appropriate place to
advance those opinions.

If these requests can be met I will formally withdraw all objections. 


> 
> 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".

Then Sam I will turn my hand to that task over the next 3 days.  If I
might, I will confer with some trusted colleagues to ensure that the draft
text meets your expectations of even-toned and void of commentary, and I
will strive to deliver that to the Working Group on Monday, Aug. 3rd. 

JF

[1 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32 ]
[2 httl://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ ]
[3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0778.html ]

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 05:56:48 UTC