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

RE: Promise broken on ISSUE 204?

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 17:52:36 -0700
To: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>, "'Cynthia Shelly'" <cyns@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <022401cd2cb4$de98e570$9bcab050$@ca>
Laura Carlson wrote:
> Judy, I request that the changes on Cynthia's document be reverted as
> this betrays our understanding and would void our agreement. If the
> changes are not reverted I may be forced to revert my CP withdrawal
> and pursue my document further.

The revert changes to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v2 have been made.

The modified CP can now be found at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v3

The changes made were positive and addressed the needs and requirements of both end users, content authors, the Accessibility Task Force, and browser vendors. The new version reflects modifications to the V2 Change Proposal, made in consultation with Edward O'Connor at the Mountain View Face-to-Face meetings, and removes the restriction for browsers to improve support of ARIA attributes whenever possible - a strong (and reasonable) objection from the browser vendors. It now also incorporates RFC 2119 language requirements which will be adopted by conformance checkers, which is a significant gain for the accessibility concerns we have.

I am sorry that an overt adherence to "process" blinds some people to positive gains made when people come together and talk to each other, rather than assuming nothing but malevolent actions: as we left the room Friday, there was an overall general feeling that with the minor changes made, Jonas (with Matt and Ted) would likely be in a position to withdraw their CP altogether. The V2 CP as it stands eliminates that possibility today, further frustrating progress on Issue 30: @longdesc.

I suppose that due to process, another call for consensus with the Task Force will be required for the V3 version of the CP, but I know how I will go.

And the next time somebody complains about the slowness of addressing outstanding issues, I will point to an overly strident adherence to "process" as the culprit. Me, I'll take progress over process any day of the week.

Sad in San Jose
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 00:53:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:52 UTC