W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Revert request

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 15:46:40 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvddONV7BOcTrKeWN+9WqbSvnVpm3MEpe80dXOLgd28yZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Sam, Paul, and Maciej, and Mike,

On the surface Simon's reasoning below appears logical. However, the
change still biases Issue 30 for the same rationale provided in:


If the revert does not happen, then I object to the HTML5 differences
from HTML4 heartbeat spec being published as well as the HTML5 spec
for these same reasons.

I would have filed a Last Call Formal Objection had I known that the
Chairs would delay ISSUE-30, not expedite it as promised, and  that it
would still be undecided today. Working Group members were mislead.

Mike, I assume one recourse to all of this is to file an appeal to
have Last Call rescinded as it was entered into under a false promise
[1]. Is this correct?

Best Regards,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0425.html

Related documentation:

November 30, 2010, Sam Ruby said to Gregory,
"Our position has always been that we are seeking a description of
what problems longdesc solves, and a description of how long desc
makes things better."

November 30, 2010, I replied and asked Sam,
"I have been gathering documentation [4]. It is just a matter of if it
will be productive to try to reopen ISSUE-30 or more efficient go
straight to a Formal Objection. Your advice?"

November 30, 2010,  Sam Ruby replied,
"I do not recommend that you  proceed directly with that information
directly to the Director.  My  advice is that that information, when
it is deemed to be complete, be presented to the HTML WG on

February 21, 2011, instead of filing a Formal Objection I asked for
Issue 30 to be reopened because of Sam's November 30 email.

May 25, 2011, in the "Responses to Last Call survey objections" the
Chairs promised to expedite the processing of Issue 30 issue during
Last Call.
To date this as not happened.

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:50:06 +0100, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello Sam, Paul, and Maciej,
>> As ISSUE-30 longdesc is still an open issue and not yet decided, I
>> request that the following be reverted:
>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/html4-differences/Overview.src.html.diff?r1=1.167;r2=1.168
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16237
> It seems to reflect the current state of the HTML5 spec, AFAICT, since the
> HTML5 spec lists obsolete features in the "Obsolete features" section.
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/obsolete.html#obsolete
> As for open issues, the diffs draft says:
> "HTML5 is still a draft. The contents of HTML5, as well as the contents of
> this document which depend on HTML5, are still being discussed on the HTML
> Working Group and WHATWG mailing lists. The open issues are linked from the
> HTML5 draft."
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/Overview.src.html#open-issues
>> I ask that working group process not be bypassed and circumvented and
>> that the change be reverted until such time as the issue is fairly
>> heard and openly decided.
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>> Best Regards,
>> Laura
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
> --
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 21:47:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:49 UTC