Re: re-open request for issue 31

Hi Paul,

First let me make this clear.
This is not 'my' proposal it is a proposal that I have recently been tasked
to produce for the HTML WG accessibility taskforce.
Due to circumstances there has not been time for the proposal to be vetted
and agreed upon by the taskforce prior to it's submission.
If the taskforce decides that they cannot support the contents of the
proposal I have submitted on their behalf, and there is no possibility, due
to HTML WG process, for modification, to reach a consensus proposal, I will
withdraw the proposal I have submitted.

I have attempted to make clear the 2 reasons for re-opening. I have also
outlined a set of changes.

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt

regards
Stevef

On 11 February 2012 14:41, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  The WG Decision Policy gives the following description of a re-open
> request:****
>
>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html?rev=1.38;content-type=text%2Fhtml#reopening<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html?rev=1.38;content-type=text%2Fhtml#reopening>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> 1. Submit a Reopen Request ****
>
> A request to reopen an issue should be submitted to the public-html@w3.orgmailing list. A request to reopen should identify the issue to be reopened,
> and should include the following:****
>
> **·         **Material new information relevant to the decision, for
> example of the type identified by the decision itself as relevant. ****
>
> **·         **A revised Change Proposal incorporating the new information
> as rationale. ****
>
> For reopening to be seriously considered, this new information and
> proposal must be likely to have been enough to materially change the
> decision, lacking refutation or additional new information,****
>
> When I read your re-open request at
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt I cannot find a
> “revised change proposal incorporating the new information as rationale”.
> Do you have such a change proposal?****
>
> ** **
>
> Your re-open request appears to be more of a history of how ISSUE-31 was
> processed and the current state of the HTML5 specifications than a request
> that provides “material new information relevant to the decision”.  Can you
> please more clearly identify the “material new information” you are
> providing as your rationale for re-opening ISSUE-31?****
>
> ** **
>
> /paulc****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada****
>
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3****
>
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Steve Faulkner [mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2012 6:00 AM
> *To:* Maciej Stachowiak; Sam Ruby; Paul Cotton
> *Cc:* HTMLWG WG; Judy Brewer; Janina Sajka; Michael Cooper; Michael(tm)
> Smith
>
> *Subject:* re-open request for issue 31****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Chairs I would appreciate your consideration of the following.****
>
> ** **
>
> Re-open request for the location of normative text alternative
> requirements aspect of ****
>
> ISSUE-31: Author conformance requirements for the alt attribute on images
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt****
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>
> ****
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html