Re: Now sure how to respond to the ally TF response

Hi Shelley,

You are correct that this resolution by the Task Force does not  
constitute a formal counter-proposal. We're still waiting for one or  
more counter-proposals to be submitted by the May 6th deadline. The  
Task Force resolution is a data point that counter-proposal authors or  
the WG as a whole could choose to use as input.

For the record: the HTML WG Chairs did not specifically ask the  
Accessibility Task Force to render a formal recommendation on these  
issues. This is something that the A11Y TF did on their own  
initiative. But neither did we stop them when we heard they planned to  
give some input. Under the  HTML WG AccessibilityTask Force Work  
Statement, it is within the scope and responsibility of the Task Force  
to make proposals and recommendations to the Working Group.


On Apr 20, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> I noticed the HTML Accessibility TF passed some form of resolution[1]
> against several of my change proposals.
> I'm disappointed that the group didn't take an opportunity to review
> each proposal independently, and disappointed that the HTML WG
> co-chairs aided and encouraged the group in this action.
> I'm also surprised, because with at least three of these items, the
> accessibility task force had no interest in either the bug or the
> issue. At least, not until suddely they decided that they could not
> live without these elements, after all. Even then, I don't
> specifically know why, other than members of the group quoting
> something from 2007.
> Some members of the accessibility task force group did question how
> these issues were handled by the group. I appreciate those who comment
> on the irregular handling.
> Now, I'm not sure how to respond to the group's actions. They're not
> providing a counter-proposal. All the group is providing is an email
> with the following paragraph:
> "RATIONALE: The F2F believes these elements are actually useful for
> accessibility. We note that features similar to the elements in  
> question
> are today created using elements with different semantics actuated by
> style and script, whereas we prefer native elements."
> By any stretch of the imagination, this isn't proper form. For being
> determined to keep the elements, the group seems to have little to say
> in their defense. Other than, "We like them. We want them. Built-in
> elements, good."
> I'm still waiting for formal counter-proposals so I can respond with
> final edits on my change proposals, including responses. I don't
> consider this an effective counter-proposal. I guess I'll see if there
> are any others by May 6th.
> My group membership agreement ends the 11th. I'm assuming I can still
> make edits if need be after the 11th.
> Shelley
> [1]
> [2]

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 00:20:49 UTC