Re: Split Issue 30?

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Laura Carlson
<> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2012, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I think that the key consideration for the Working Group should be to
>> ensure that every issue and every proposal gets fair consideration.
>> This needs to take priority over considerations of which proposal
>> benefits.
> Fair consideration does not allow one proposal to benefit over another.
>> It seems to me that your argument is purely based on giving a tactical
>> advantage to the "Instate Longdesc" Change Proposal, not on making
>> sure that *all* proposals  get a fair hearing,
> That is completely backward. My argument is based on the fact that
> Jonas stated on this list [1] in no uncertain terms that it would make
> his proposal to obsolete longdesc stronger if his proposal was decided
> first. Allowing that does not make for a fair hearing.

The result is more important than the process.

As far as I can tell, we need to address the conflict between what the
ARIA documents are saying and what our HTML documents are saying.

We have at least one WG member (Jonas) who would address the
conformance of @longdesc differently depending on our resolution of
that conflict.

Do we have any WG members who would address the conflict between ARIA
and HTML differently if @longdesc were conforming rather than
obsolete? Can they articulate how and why? If so, then the issues
cannot be logically decoupled. Otherwise, it makes sense to make the
resolution of @longdesc depend on the resolution of the conflict
between ARIA and HTML to avoid revisiting the issue once that conflict
is resolved.

Not resolving the conflict may make it hard for WG members to evaluate
any of the @longdesc proposals because of the confusion about their
statements about ARIA.

In particular:

is now radically out of step with what the ARIA documents actually say.

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 13:29:13 UTC