W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: ISSUE-116: Would a separate document work?

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:41:59 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikB3+ujJeRjMQJp+hhr+x7C_6B6kAtvBMEgyE7y@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
hi sam,

a few  comments on the issue markers:
1. as requested in the change proposal the text 'last call for comments'
should be removed as this statement is incorrect.
2. the text "IS
blocks progress to Last Call" is only on
*3. "Status: **Last call for comments." *is on each of the individual
4. Both the current short (missing-alt) and long name  for  issue 31 does
not reflect the scope of the issue.
I would agree that the issue markers would satisfy Issue 116 for me,  if
1. the erroneous text 'last call for comments' is removed from the issue
markers or replaced with text that is accurate, for example, "in dispute".
2.  "IS <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31>SUE-31<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31>
conformance requirements) blocks progress to Last Call" is included on each
of the sections ( to that are in dispute.
3. the short name and long name of the issue are changed to something that
reflects the scope of the issue, for example, short name "alt conformance


On 25 August 2010 23:01, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 08/25/2010 05:15 PM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>> HI Sam,
>> Do any of the other documents you list contain normative content that
>> conflicts with normative content in the HTML5 spec? Or are being
>> developed as replacements for normative requirements in the HTML5 spec?
> Not to my knowledge.
>  What is within the HTML5 specification is seen by people to be the
>> authoritative version of the HTML5 alt attribute authoring conformance
>> requirements, it has the benefit of incumbency, being resident in the
>> HTML5 specification. Either this does make it the authoritative
>> version HTML5 alt attribute authoring conformance requirements or it
>> does not, if it does not then the existence of the alternative should be
>> indicated in the context of the alt section of the HTML5 spec.
> I'll remind you that we already have discussed at great length the idea of
> prominent issue markers with "neutral" text.  We even got to the point where
> a complete alternate draft was produced and was put up for a vote by the
> working group.  The decision was to *not* include the prominent issue
> markers.  One of the primary concerns was the selection criteria used to
> decide which issues to mark, and another was over the lack of consensus over
> the "neutral" content.  (And hence my use of "scare quotes" around the term
> "neutral").
> An outcome of that process is that we actually did settle on a working
> definition of a neutral issue marker: a simple and prominent box which
> contains a link to the issue as well as the short description.
> In fact, there already is such an issue marker:
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1.html#alt
> Furthermore, the process is automated.  What caused that link to be placed
> there is the existence of the text HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [alt] in the
> description of issue 31.
>  So while the development of an "index of relevant documents" may be
>> worthwhile it does not provide a satisfactory resolution to (for me at
>> least) issue 116 [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/116]
> I can certainly proceed with a call for proposals, but before I do, can I
> ask you to explain to me why the current issue markers are not sufficient
> for your needs, and why you think that asking this group again what seems
> (to me, at least) to be essentially the same question that was decided
> before has any hope of getting a different result?
>  with regards
>> Stevef
> - Sam Ruby
>  On 25 August 2010 20:56, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
>> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>>    On 08/11/2010 08:53 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>        we have 2 documents currently published by the working group
>>        that have
>>        normative requirements on use of the alt attribute in HTML5
>>        Neither is authoritative or has the consensus of the working group.
>>        Until the situation is resolved it is in the best interests of all
>>        readers of either document to be made aware of the existence of the
>>        other document to ensure that nobody is under the assumption that
>>        neither document authoritatively defines the conformance
>>        requirements
>>        for use of alt in HTML5.
>>    A few questions.  Short version:
>>    Could this "index of relevant documents" be a separate document?
>>    Longer version:
>>    This is a probe to explore if there is a possibility of amicable
>>    consensus, obviating the need for proposals, counter proposals,
>>    surveys, etc.
>>    Putting aside for the moment the fact that neither is required to
>>    have consensus at this point, nor the fact that neither will advance
>>    very far without consensus, the question concerning Issue 116 is
>>    much more narrowly scoped.  It is talking about a simple link and
>>    neutral information.
>>    I'll note that this is not the only such document that the HTML WG
>>    is producing.  The current list can be found down the right hand
>>    side of the HTML WG page:
>>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/
>>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/
>>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/
>>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
>>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/
>>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/diff/
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html
>>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
>>    I also note that the term "HTML 5" is often an umbrella term that
>>    people use to encompass other things including WebApps, Device APIs
>>    and Policies, CSS, ECMAScript-262, and potentially many other things.
>>    So... the questions I would like to pose to the group is:
>>    (1) Would there be benefit to the development and publishing of an
>>    overview document for HTML5?
>>    (2) Is there somebody (or perhaps a group of people) willing to
>>    produce such a document?
>>    (3) Would the existence of such a document satisfy everybody's
>>    needs, i.e., if it were to exist and get past FPWD could we then
>>    close ISSUE-166 by amicable resolution?
>>    - Sam Ruby
>> --
>> with regards
>> Steve Faulkner
>> Technical Director - TPG Europe
>> Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
>> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | www.wat-c.org
>> <http://www.wat-c.org>
>> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
>> http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 06:42:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 August 2010 06:42:57 GMT