Re: Revert Request

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> On 01/30/2012 11:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Laura Carlson
>> <>  wrote:
>>> Hi Silvia,
>>> The change directly implements half of Jonas' longdesc proposal.
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Laura
>> That seems like a terrible reason to request a change to be reverted.
>> Instead we should look like if the change was a good one. I.e. is it
>> good for the web and is it good for accessibility.
>> To me the answer is a clear "yes" on both. Also note that this change
>> is almost completely orthogonal to the longdesc debate as I will show
>> below.
> Jonas, I encourage you to update your change proposal to include all of the
> relevant information, and in particular to address the feedback below:
> While updating the proposal is entirely optional, I will suggest that if you
> do not chose to update the proposal based on this feedback it is unlikely
> that your proposal will be the one selected.  In particular, the lack of use
> cases is particularly problematic.

Unfortunately I won't have time to keep my proposal up to date. As of
a few months ago I have new work assignments at mozilla and so have
very little time for HTML5 issues, time that I'd rather spend on other
issues. Note that the discussions I had with Hixie happened at least a
couple of months ago.

I'm not sure if this means that I should withdraw my proposal, if the
chairs feel that that is the most fair course of action I will do so.
Otherwise others are very welcome to pick it up.

I had hoped that explaining my reasoning for what I believe is the
best for accessibility on the web would have persuaded people, but if
that's not the case then the working group should do what it believes
help authors that want to create accessible pages and thus makes for
the most accessible web.

/ Jonas

Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:06:32 UTC