- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:53:52 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
I would hope that it is within the scope of each Task Force to make thoughtful proposals and reasoned recommendations, which I would welcome. I guess we wait for both. Thanks Shelley On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Regards, > Maciej > > > 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] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0183.html >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0131.html >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 02:54:26 UTC