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

Re: CfC: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

From: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:57:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4B7BCB99.7010208@namics.com>
To: W3C HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 16.02.2010 22:26, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> a) Doug Schepers and Eliot Graff published a split-off in October [1]
>> that hasn't been reflected in Ian Hickson's work. Obviously the group
>> disagrees here, and I haven't seen any efforts to find a consensus.
>> While a consensus is not officially required for publication as a
>> FPWD, I certainly do now want Google and Microsoft drift off in
>> different directions. I would suggest trying to merge the two
>> documents first or at least I would like to see some dialog evolve
>> publicly between the factions.
> Martin: while I share you hopes... I must ask: are you personally
> stepping forward and saying that you will do the work of merging these
> two documents?

I'm glad to hear that Ian has taken efforts to integrate their proposal, 
yet I seem to have missed the public discussion leading to a consensus. 
If both parties agree and actively support it, I can review and merge 
the two documents or post bug reports. I'd like to hear Doug and Eliot's 
opinion first, and because of work for SXSW I'm afraid I can't start 
before March 22.

>> b) Accessibility support in Canvas does not exist at all. The HTML
>> Accessibility Task Force currently is working with several browser
>> vendors on proof of concept implementations to enable usage with
>> assistive technologies. Publication as a separate Working Draft is
>> giving a wrong signal of maturity and should therefore be postponed
>> until the task force proposes an adequate solution.
> There are a number of issues that will block progress to final Rec,
> including but not limited to the following:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/open
> The way we handle other issues is that we mark the status in the
> document itself:
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-canvas-element.html#the-canvas-element
> Are there other places in the document(s) that you feel that this
> particular concern should be noted?

The status remark is fine as a note, still I'm of the opinion that the 
document is not ready yet for the next step while the Task Force is 
working on a solution. Ian is right that the initial accessibility of 
the <object> and <img> elements was worse, but that was before WAI, 
WCAG, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
Accessibility as an afterthought for a current specification is shaming 
and in my opinion a major blocker for advancement in status.

Sorry, I still object.

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 10:57:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC