Re: Fwd: Moving forward with Issue-204

Paul, Sam, Maciej,

We object to surveying Issue 204 with Ted's change proposal as 
currently written because of unclarity in the  details of his change proposal.

Ted's change proposal as currently written [1] includes only a brief 
summary; the details section is likewise brief; the link for 
additional information from within the details section points to a 
diff [2] which Sam has already acknowledged [3] includes some 
information that is not relevant to Ted's change proposal; further 
inspection of that same diff language shows that it also includes 
commit language from unrelated edits, making it more difficult to 
determine the actual difference proposed. Nor, being long strings of 
diff language, is it necessarily as clearly understandable as a 
change proposal should be. Sam has proposed an English language 
summary of the change details [4], but neither Ted nor the other 
authors have yet verified that. Nor is Sam's summary of the proposed 
change linked from the change proposal, therefore it is not clear 
that Sam's interpretation is what would actually be being surveyed.

If Ted verifies that Sam's proposal reflects his intent and Sam's 
summary is then linked from the details section of that change 
proposal; and the diff language including extraneous info is either 
removed or replaced with a diff consistent with Sam's summary; these 
steps would address our concern regarding clarity of the change proposal.


- Judy, WAI Domain Lead
- Janina, PFWG Chair


>-- Forwarded message --
>From: Paul Cotton <>
>Date: Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:44 PM
>Subject: RE: Moving forward with Issue-204
>To: Laura Carlson <>, Jonas Sicking
><>, Edward O'Connor <>
>Cc: "John Foliot (" <>, "Janina Sajka
><> (" <>,
>"" <>,
>"" <>
> > Two weeks ago, John replied to Ted regarding Ted's proposed text. 
> It was on the same day that Ted proposed it: June 29, 2012.
> > John's response is at:
> >
>My apologies for missing John's reply.  My only excuses are a) not
>enough early morning coffee and b) John copied the TF email list which
>caused his message to get filed automatically in separate folder by my
>inbound email rules.  I really should have checked the thread on
>So to summarize:
>a) We have a proposal from Ted and John's reply but not further
>progress on that front, AND
>b) We have Janina's separate concern about the Details section of
>Ted's Change Proposal
>and no further progress on that front.
>If the Chairs do not see any indication that anyone is going to work
>on the above two items then we propose to proceed to a survey on the
>two existing changes proposals:
>Please provide any objections to this plan ASAP.
>HTML WG co-chair
>Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Laura Carlson []
>Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:27 PM
>To: Paul Cotton; Jonas Sicking; Edward O'Connor
>Cc: John Foliot (; Janina Sajka <>,
>Subject: Re: Moving forward with Issue-204
>Hi Paul,
>On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Paul Cotton 
><> wrote:
> > Ted wrote:
> >> Here's my attempt at wording this restriction. What do you think?
> >
> > I have not seen any feedback on this proposed text.
>Two weeks ago, John replied to Ted regarding Ted's proposed text. It
>was on the same day that Ted proposed it: June 29, 2012. John's
>response is at:
>Paul, I think that John's  third to the last paragraph is key to this
>situation: "we've come to a crossroads". *
>Janina said in last week's HTML WG teleconference:
> > janina: would be happiest if we can reach consensus on language ...
> > not sure how to move in that direction, would be good if hober can
> > move this ... great concern is there are large # of disabled users not
> > using screen readers ... problems with tab approach ... probably not
> > meeting all use cases
>So it seems that the ball is in Ted and  Jonas' court.
>Ted and Jonas, can you live with John's V4 CP?
>If not can you while taking into consideration John's June 29th reply,
>propose text for the details section of the V4 proposal that that you
>could live with? Like John, I too am hoping for a positive response.
>Best Regards,
>* "Every good-faith effort has been made here, and if at this time you
>and Jonas are still unprepared to endorse the V4 CP, then I will ask
>the Accessibility Task Force for their endorsement of the V4 CP and
>ask that the Chairs proceed with a WBS survey on Issue 204.", John
>Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 21:16:10 UTC