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

Re: ISSUE-122 (shalott-example) - Expanded scope and Call for Counter-Proposals

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:29:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4CC899B0.4080101@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 10/27/2010 03:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> After further discussion, the Chairs thing it would make more sense to
>> expand this issue to apply to all WG deliverables, including the HTML5
>> draft. This raises a few issues:
>> 1) This was not duly indicated to the WG in advance. So we're not going
>> to hold to the call for consensus.
>> 2) The Change Proposal submitted does not express the relevant changes
>> to the HTML5 draft, it only gives detail for the alt-requirements draft.
>> Therefore it needs to be revised.
>> 3) Since the null change proposal would, upon updating, call for a
>> change, we expect there will be new interest in writing
>> counter-proposals.
>> Therefore, please submit counter-proposals, alternate proposals and
>> revised proposals for this issue by November 27, with the understanding
>> that it applies to all HTML WG publications.
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/122
> Even as the raiser of this issue, I have no idea what the scope of this
> issue is. When I raised it, it was an editorial issue with an example in a
> specific draft. That example doesn't exist in any other draft.
> Could someone explain what problem this issue actually refers to now? What
> bug is it escalated from?

If we find that we have WG consensus on the statement mentioned in the 
top only Change Proposal that we have to date, namely "Do not make it 
non-conforming in HTML5 for authors to provide text alternatives for 
images considered to enhance the themes or subject matter of the page 
content", then we would expect every WG document to be updated to match 
that consensus.

Given that the two documents are inconsistent, we expecting each change 
proposal to describe at least one set of changes which makes these 
documents consistent.

The original bugs were 9077 and 9081.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 21:30:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:06 UTC