RE: [html] Summary draft

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 2) Responding to my proposal, John said, among other things,
> "As one member of HTML WG, I voice my support", and "To be formal,
> I support this initiative fully."

Let's also remember that in that same email, you wrote:
"HTML WG will propose a WCAG2 Techniques update to the appropriate working
group of WAI (is it PFWG or WCAG WG?)"
This is what I offered to support. This also would indicate that there is
an understanding of overarching issues, but disagreement on particulars -
both fair and reasonable positions.

Yet now the editor claims he doesn't understand the issue?  There is a
mighty huge difference between disagreeing on particulars, and 'not
understanding' the issue.

> 3) I privately showed the current spec text to John before Ian checked
> it in, talked it over with him by phone, and confirmed with him that it
> fulfilled the 5-point compromise proposal, and that he personally found
> it acceptable. 

...and as stated in my 'acceptance' the key point for me being that the
PFWG should be the place of origin for any advisory text: "... WCAG / WAI
/ PFWG have been asked to provide workable advisory to associate to
@summary, which they are actively working on."

> It's true that in his later emails, John backed away a little from
> his initial wholehearted approval.

Let me be very clear here: I agree that any opportunity that allows us to
better instruct and inform authors on how to improve their content,
especially in regards to accessibility, is a good opportunity that should
not be missed - having an advisory associated with the table element that
instructs authors on how to make the table more accessible is good - no
great. (Many believe that invoking @summary should be one of those
instances, and I do not disagree with that thought.) If at any time you
have had the impression that I have backed away from any of these points,
please reconsider that interpretation.

I also wholeheartedly agree and approve with Cynthia, on behalf and
bequest of the PFWG, suggesting draft text for any advisory that would be
associated with @summary.  I further fully support and endorse consensus
and the process behind it that hopefully will resolve this issue.  If you,
or others, have issues, concerns or alternative language to what Cynthia
has presented, I wholeheartedly support your input and discussion, and if
those proposals have merit I will back them fully. And I re-iterate my
support if you or others wish to approach WAI PFWG about revisiting WCAG 2
guidance language in an effort to update it to reflect new realities.

> None of this rules out suggesting further spec changes. But I cannot
> square these past actions with presenting the current spec text as the
> work of "one person ([Ian])" or "biased in its 'suggestions'".

The earlier draft language around @summary was exactly that, Ian's
guidance and opinion.  I had thought that we had gotten past that until
Ian chimed in today saying he didn't understand the issue.  My comment was
in reference to that, but I can see how it could be applied to the current
draft, which, while incomplete, is in accordance with what I believed was
the consensus at the time approaching the Heartbeat draft.  At that time,
as today, the advisory language and Issue 32 remain open and awaiting
resolution. Cynthia's work at this time is movement forward.

> Note: none of this should stop John from suggesting further
> But I think comments on the state of the current spec text should
> acknowledge John's role in creating it.

Rest assured Maciej, I will continue to offer my contributions, and if we
can avoid circular "I don't understand" emails after so much effort has
been invested by others on any particular topic, then we will indeed see
positive progress.


Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 06:12:30 UTC