- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:03:08 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Hi Sam, I wrote: > 2. And if the answer to that the decision turns out to be: "Yes, we > will include the longdesc attribute is in the spec.", I am asking: "Is > there realistically enough time in the HTML5 timeline after the > decision ISSUE 30 is announced for this working group to modify > longdesc to expand it to other attributes?" Or have the delays made > that impossible? To be perfectly clear, I would asking for a NEW issue NOT issue-30 but issue-206 to modify an attribute. If the Charis had expedited ISSUE 30 as promised and decided the issue last summer or early fall this would not be a problem now. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura Carlson On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sam, > >> Thanks for this email! Sincerely! There clearly is a disconnect, and >> perhaps now we can get to the bottom of it. > > Yes Sam. There certainly is a disconnect. I am NOT asking for > provisional decision. I am asking for a real and permanent decision on > ISSUE-30. > > ISSUE-30 is: > "Should HTML5 include a longdesc attribute for images?" > > Including an attribute or element in HTML5 is a SEPARATE issue than > modifying an attribute or element after a decision to include it in > the spec has been adjudicated. > > A recent case in point is @hidden: > > * ISSUE-95 on @hidden was to decide if we were to include the > attribute in the spec. [1] The decision was: "Yes, we will include the > hidden attribute is in the spec." > * ISSUE-204 is to decide if we are going to modify that same attribute. [2] > > No one is asking to reverse the decision on ISSUE-95 and remove > @hidden in ISSUE-204. That has already been decided. ISSUE-95 is a > real and permanent decision. > > Other past examples exist including the ISSUE-15 decision to keep > canvas in the spec and the half dozen issues to modify canvas since > that decision; the ISSUE-90 decision to keep figure in the spec and > issues to modify figure since that decision is another example etc. > etc. > > I am asking for equitable treatment for ISSUE-30. > > Specifically I am asking: > > 1. For a real and permanent ISSUE-30 decision to the question: "Should > HTML5 include a longdesc attribute for images?" > > 2. And if the answer to that the decision turns out to be: "Yes, we > will include the longdesc attribute is in the spec.", I am asking: "Is > there realistically enough time in the HTML5 timeline after the > decision ISSUE 30 is announced for this working group to modify > longdesc to expand it to other attributes?" Or have the delays made > that impossible? > > Best Regards, > Laura > > [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/95 > [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204 > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> Thanks for this email! Sincerely! There clearly is a disconnect, and >> perhaps now we can get to the bottom of it. >> >> >> On 03/19/2012 05:00 PM, Laura Carlson wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sam, >>> >>>> Meanwhile, we desperately need to break out of the following state: >>>> >>>> 1) We need a decision *now* on longdesc >>> >>> >>> We have needed an expedited decision for a very long time. It was >>> promised but not delivered. Not providing one has been damaging. >> >> >> What you appear to be saying is that you want a provisional decision that >> will immediately be reopened. That is not something that I will support. >> >> If you need more a small amount of time to produce proposals, I think that >> could be accommodated. Asking for a decision with the intention of >> immediately reopening the decision is not something I would support. >> >> >>>> 2) We are still working on proposals for longdesc >>> >>> >>> My completed issue 30 proposal has been ready since May 2011 right >>> after the accessibility task force came to consensus and endorsed it. >>> >>> Call for Issue 30 counter proposals passed June 2011. You received one >>> proposal from Jonas and one from Matt Turvey. >>> >>> You split Jonas' proposal from Issue 30 to make Issue 204 February 2012. >>> >>> Jonas requested that 204 be surveyed before 30. >>> >>> Are not issue 204 proposals ready to be surveyed? >> >> >> We have yet to ensure that all the proposals for issue 204 have been >> reviewed, or even that we have received all such proposals. >> >> >>>> 3) The chairs are jerks >>> >>> >>> No one has applied that label but you, Sam. I do not think you are a jerk. >> >> >> I will ask you to do one of two things: stop asking for an expedited >> decision on issue 30, or stop expecting to be able to immediately reopen >> that decision once it is issued. I do not intend to support both requests. >> >> >>>> It is theoretically possible for longdesc to be 'instated' as a valid >>>> attribute on img in HTML5, but removed in HTML.next. It is also >>>> theoretically possible that longdesc is a valid attribute on img in >>>> HTML5, >>>> and will be valid on div too in HTML.next. >>> >>> >>> What I would ask is if it is decided that longdesc is included in >>> HTML5 via Issue 30, is there realistically enough time AFTER that >>> decision is announced for this working group to expand longdesc to >>> other attributes in the HTML5 timeline? >>> >>> Or has Issue 30 been delayed for so long, it is now now impossible for >>> that to happen? >> >> >> The chairs are willing to allow the proposals to be amended up to the point >> of a survey, but not afterwards. If you have something to propose, please >> do so now. Beyond that, future work will go into future releases of HTML. >> >>> Best Regards, >>> Laura >> >> >> - Sam Ruby > > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 12:03:43 UTC