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

Re: Revert request

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:15:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvc-ipQdNn=CeOd71mu4=6qwk9zUa84m9BsBnuSZQ_EwYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Sam,

> Full stop.

Not quite but a close and apt description of how the Chairs have
handled the situation.

> 204 seems to be wrapping up.


> I want to establish that nobody in the a11y TF
> will be coming forward with an aria based proposal.  Given recent messaging
> from both Janina and Judy, that doesn't seem like something that would be
> difficult to obtain.

Okay. Janina and Judy can you please verify this for the HTML Chairs?

> What I seem to be failing to communicate is that it is nobody's best
> interest to make a second decision on issue 30 when there is active work
> underway which, if successful, would cause issue 30 to be reopened yet
> again.

No one wants that. Janina and Judy please let the HTML Chairs know
what the status is.

> If your request is for a provisional decision based on the information we
> have to date with the expectation that it will be reopened yet again, then
> that simply is not something that I expect that I will ever support.

No, I do not ask for a provisional decision. I am asking for a real
and permanent decision so that either:

1. longdesc implementation can proceed. No one is going to implement
an obsolete attribute. As Henri has said, "There's really no point in
*adding* support for obsolete features." [1]  In contrast Anne has
said, examples in the specification serve as an incentive to vendors,
"It's an incentive to get the software fixed." [2] We have new
examples for vendors in the new spec text.


2. We can begin writing a formally objection if the Chairs previous
decision is not reversed.

Living in the Chairs' imposed state of limbo is damaging. The time
that the Chairs have delayed this issue (as opposed to their promise
of expediting it)  has diminished real work that could have happened
to get longdesc implementations fixed and to extend longdesc's
usefulness to other elements. Or it could have been used to write a
formal objection.

> I want to make sure that it is NOT likely that the chairs will
> reopen the request based on new information yet again.

After this experience, I will not ask for any issue to be reopened as
the Chairs' word seems to be meaningless.

Best Regards,
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1996#c77
[3] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13531#c6
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:16:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC