Re: Reminder of the Deadline for reopen requests based on New Information

This reopen request includes a Change Proposal, and explicitly calls out new information. Thus, what remains to be determined is whether the new information would have been likely to materially affect the decision, at least in the absence of rebuttal or additional information.


The reopen request seems to have four points of new information:

1) Identification of specific tools that include <meta generator>: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#current_usage_of_meta_name.3Dgenerator_.28New.29>

- This provides evidence of widespread use, but no concrete evidence that this causes alt to be omitted more often. This could be material new information if more was provided.


2) A claim that the majority of content with the generator flag was not created with a WYSIWYG tool:
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#Majority_of_content_not_exclusively_WYSIWYG_.28New.29>

- This seems to be responding to a point not made and not cited in the decision (there are general references to "authoring tools" but not specifically "WYSIWIG tools"), so this point would not have materially affected the decision.


3) An indication that no evidence was provided for the claim that "users will consider an authoring tool non-conforming (buggy) if the documents it outputs are not flagged as conforming by validators"
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#WYSYWIG_applications_.28new.29>

The point being disputed was only a weak factor in the decision. And no evidence was given for the opposite proposition. Thus, this was not considered material new information.


4) An indication that no evidence was provided of explicit buy-in from authoring tool vendors or content authors for the meta generator exemption:
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#Assumed_agreement_and_need_.28New.29>

Buy-in was not originally cited, however, significant opposition from authoring tool vendors or content authors *would* be material new information. No such information has been provded yet, however.



Conclusion:

We not believe that Steve's new information as currently constituted would have been likely to materially affect the decision. Therefore, we deny this reopen request at this time. However, if some additional information is provided, we expect that this request would be sufficient to reopen the issue: 

- The first point, identifying many tools that emit <meta generator>, would likely be sufficient to reopen the issue if it was also shown that it causes alt to be omitted more often, whether deliberately or accidentally.

- The fourth point, arguing that there is no evidence of buy-in from authoring tool vendors or content authors, would likely be sufficient to reopen the issue if it was also shown that authoring tool vendors or actual authors are opposed to the <meta generator> exemption.

- There may be ways to improve the other points, though none come to mind at this time.


Regards,
Maciej


On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:

> Hi Sam
> I have prepared a reopen request and Change Proposal [1] for the <meta generator>
>   aspect of ISSUE-31:
>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0480.html>
> 
> 
> It is expected to be supported by the a11y taskforce, but I want to ensure that it is recorded as proposed before the 11 feb cutoff date
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming
> 
> 
> regards
> stevef
> 
> On 8 February 2012 21:52, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 1) We remind the Working Group that the requirements for a reopen
>   request[1] to be considered by the Chairs can be found here:
> 
>   http://tinyurl.com/reopening-htmlwg
> 
> 2) We remind the Working Group that date we expect to have all of the
>   information we need to evaluate these requests is February 11th:
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0099.html
> 
> 3) At the present time, we believe we have received only two reopen
>   requests that are due a response on the merits:
> 
> a) Leif's reopen request and Change Proposal for the <meta generator>
>   aspect of ISSUE-31:
>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0480.html>
> 
> b) Janina's post asking to reopen ISSUE-80:
>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0157.html>
>   and Steve's accompanying Change Proposal:
>   <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2>
> 
> We will be evaluating and responding to both, but in the meanwhile we encourage the owners of the remaining efforts to complete those efforts by this Saturday.
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/new-information-status.html
> 
> 
>