- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:54:13 -0400
- To: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Ian Hickson (ian@hixie.ch)" <ian@hixie.ch>
On 03/15/2012 06:59 PM, Frank Olivier wrote:
> We've discussed this further and I would like to request that this
> change be reverted.
>
> At this time, while the group is about to publish new heartbeat
> drafts, we believe that this change reduces rather than increases
> consensus. The goal of heartbeat publications is to show progress and
> increasing consensus. This change has been made with no discussion in
> the working group and no bugs filed in Bugzilla. It potentially
> conflicts with the change proposal for improving accessibility in
> canvas (ISSUE-201). We have invested a large amount of time
> discussing this with many members of the group before we submitted
> it.
>
> If r7023 is a counter proposal for ISSUE-201 then it should be
> submitted through the escalation process.
>
> If not, then implementing the accessibility improvements described in
> our change proposal is a higher priority than adding features that
> haven't been discussed in the working group.
>
> In either case, this change seems to be harmful to the goal of adding
> consensus-driven accessibility improvements to canvas.
We have multiple requests to revert change r7023, and they included
plausible rationale.
Therefore:
1) We ask for a revert of this change to be completed no later than the
end of day on the 28st of March. If this revert is not complete by
that time, we will instruct W3C staff to make this change.
2) The HTML WG Chairs again ask that those who may wish to revisit the
issue do so by contributing to one or more of the active change
proposals on the issue:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-201
We are aware that the current call for Alternate or Counter proposals
for this issue has expired, and that an extension request has been made.
Meanwhile, the currents status is that we are still accepting proposals.
Additionally, the chairs are aware that what may be proposed might be
similar to what exists in the editor's draft today, much like the text
in for the time element was similar to the text that people asked to be
restored in the case of the revert request for r6783. As we did in that
case, the chairs will actively watch to see if consensus or even partial
consensus is emerging, and will vacate this request should that occur.
- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 17:54:44 UTC