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

Martin Kliehm wrote:
> 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.

There has been no determination of consensus.

The current state is that Ian has been working on this effort 
continuously for several years.  Doug and Eliot put together some 
thoughts as one point in the form of a tangible draft, and I thank them 
for that.  Ian apparently took inspiration from a number of aspects of 
that draft, and made a number of improvements.  At which point, neither 
Doug nor Eliot have chosen to pursue this further at this time, for 
whatever reason.  Perhaps they are satisfied.  Perhaps they are busy.

To date, the chairs have declined to force Doug and Eliot to pursue this 
further.  I will go further and say that I am disinclined to take any 
action which would slam the door on their further participation. 
Similarly, I will decline to attempt to force you to post bug reports or 
even actively review the content of the documents in question.

The rules for a Formal Objection can be found here:

     An individual who registers a Formal Objection SHOULD cite technical
     arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal
     Objection; these proposals MAY be vague or incomplete. Formal
     Objections that do not provide substantive arguments or rationale
     are unlikely to receive serious consideration by the Director.

At the present time, I don't see any specific, substantive actionable 
technical arguments in this part of your objection.  That being said, I 
am quite willing to participate in the forwarding of this objection to 
the Director, and encourage you to provide more specifics.  I fear that 
until or unless this is done, your Formal Objection will not be met with 
serious consideration until it has be augmented with substantiative 
details on what exactly needs to be fixed.

>>> 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:
>> The way we handle other issues is that we mark the status in the
>> document itself:
>> 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.

I encourage you to read the rules on the W3C Working Group "Heartbeat" 

I'll also encourage you to read the status sections in the documents in 
question.  The signal that the Working Group is intended to send is that 
the content is seeking wider review.  Review that will hopefully provide 
substantive technical comments.

A decision by the chairs will be made after this day is over.  If you 
don't voluntarily withdraw this objection and no other evidence is 
brought forward, it is my expectation that the chairs will forward these 
documents on with a request that they be published over objections, and 
in the case of your objection will cite a lack of substantive technical 

> Cheers,
>   Martin

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 11:33:12 UTC