Re: ISSUE-194: full-transcript - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

On 03/21/2012 09:11 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Sam Ruby<>  wrote:
>> On 03/21/2012 06:59 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Sam Ruby<>    wrote:
>>>> On 03/14/2012 08:27 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>>> Dear Chairs,
>>>>> May I suggest that the resolution of this issue is dependent on the
>>>>> resolution of several other issues and discussions currently under
>>>>> way. I therefore propose to delay dealing with this issue until such
>>>>> other issues are resolved. This includes in particular the @longdesc
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>> In my mind, it is possible that the HTML WG decides that there is
>>>>> sufficient need for a general mechanism to add off-page textual
>>>>> representations to certain complex elements to HTML5, elements such as
>>>>> canvas, img, video, audio, table, or figure. If such a general
>>>>> mechanism were added - which could be called @longdesc or @href or
>>>>> @transcript - such a mechanism would fulfill the needs of this issue.
>>>> Can you cite any existing proposal that, if adopted, would address this
>>>> need?
>>> I can now. Please find a proposal for aria-describedat under
>>> discussion at
>>> .
>>> I expect that this attribute will be added to Aria 1.1 and it
>>> satisfies the needs of Issue 194.
>>> I would therefore like to repeat my request to not resolve this issue
>>> at this time.
>> Do you have a proposal for when this should be resolved?
> I am curious to see Edward's change proposal, so two weeks at minimum.
> In the meantime, I want to work with the authors of the describedAt
> proposal to improve it. This attribute has implications on other
> elements, too, including the longdesc discussion. I want to get input
> from the Web community outside the accessibility space on this
> attribute, too. I doubt we can get broader input and in particular
> consensus within these two weeks, but can certainly try.
> What is the current state of the Last Call timeline and your plans to
> move to CR? (I've lost track, sorry, and couldn't find any update over

We clearly are remiss in updating that; clearing the current backlog of 
issues is a part of the planning process.

Given the number of outstanding issues, keeping this particular issue 
open for a couple of weeks more is not likely to cause a problem.  I was 
more concerned about the possibility of this being an open ended request.

I doubt I will have a definitive answer by tomorrow's telecon, but 
likely will by the next one.  I'll keep you posted.

> Regards,
> Silvia.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 01:42:47 UTC