- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:11:25 -0400
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'Laura Carlson' <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 06/04/2010 05:10 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: > John Foliot wrote: >> >> The 'philosophical' decision to keep the element(s) mentioned in >> Issues 90 & 91 in HTML5 has been reached following W3C process. At >> this point, if a *member of the Working Group* feels that there are >> 'issues' with aspects of these elements, I would suspect that the >> appropriate next step would be to file one or more bug reports against >> that element. However, the fundamental decision or retaining or >> abandoning this element has been addressed, and the decision has been >> made, and so any such bug report should focus on 'remediation' rather >> than removal at this time (unless a clear technical argument that >> demonstrates 'harm' is brought forth). Chairs, is this correct? > Sam covered the appropriate next step I can take if I believe that the > co-chairs did not address the issues I brought up: a Formal Objection. You both use the word 'the' as if there was only one appropriate next step. I disagree. The decisions in question both conclude with: > Meanwhile, we encourage people to write specific and actionable bug > reports on areas where this element is deficient. It should come as no surprise to anybody that I would prefer bug reports, assuming that they describe new information, over a Formal Objection. In any case, I will note that these approaches are not mutually exclusive. At this time, I will go further and suggest that *either* continued assertions of accessibility issues be dropped *or* such be documented in the form of bug reports. - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 22:13:27 UTC