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

RE: FORMAL OBJECTION (RE: Working Group Decision on 142 poster-alt)

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:41:30 +0000
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
CC: 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AB5704B0EEC35B4691114DC04366B37F16B699EF@TK5EX14MBXC289.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> Please consider this a Formal Objection regarding this decision. 

We have recorded this formal objection to the WG decision on ISSUE-142 at:

Do you wish to maintain this Formal Objection?  If so then we will keep it on this list so that it can be presented to the W3C Director at the next transition of the HTML5 specification.  If not please let us know and we will drop it from the list.


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Foliot
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:11 PM
To: 'Sam Ruby'; 'HTML WG'
Cc: 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'
Subject: FORMAL OBJECTION (RE: Working Group Decision on 142 poster-alt)


Please consider this a Formal Objection regarding this decision. 

The principle grounds for this Objection can be found here:

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Looking deeper into this it turns out that the "Introduce a new 
> <firstframe> element" Change Proposal is internally inconsistent.  It 
> provides spec text that describes an element with a value of a url, 
> but then provides examples where the value is placed in a src attribute.

This is an inaccurate statement, as NO ACTUAL SPECIFICATION TEXT WAS PROVIDED. In fact, under the heading "Creation of 4.8.10 The firstframe element" the Change Proposal *specifically* states:

	"(NOTE: I make no pretense of being a Technical Editor, and request assistance in ensuring that the following prose explanation be converted to workable technical text.)"

Since no actual specification text was provided (and further, technical assistance to ensure workable text be created was specifically requested), to reject this Change Proposal on inconsistent Specification Text is an illogical and unfounded judgment. 

To discard all of the evidence and concrete examples admitted by the Chairs as relevant and strong on a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of prose text is both short-sighted and incorrect. Repeatedly throughout the Decision the Chairs admit that concrete examples to support the Principle of the Change Proposal were in evidence and provided strong argument.

Further, the No-Change Proposal does nothing to address these issues and problems acknowledged as relevant and strong to this issue. Failing to address the recognized needs (and wants) of people with disabilities on a misinterpretation of prose text does a disservice to all those affected by this decision, and is counter to the spirit of the design principle of Users over Authors over Implementers over Code Purity.

> == Appealing this Decision ==
> If anyone strongly disagrees with the content of the decision and 
> would like to raise a Formal Objection, they may do so at this time. 
> Formal Objections are reviewed by the Director in consultation with the Team.
> Ordinarily, Formal Objections are only reviewed as part of a 
> transition request.

As noted, please consider this a raising of a Formal Objection

> == Revisiting this Issue ==
> This issue can be reopened if new information come up. Examples of 
> possible relevant new information include:
> * Identification of use cases that specifically require a different
>    description for the placeholder/poster/firstframe image than for the
>    video itself.  These use cases would need to cover every normative
>    requirement identified in any Change Proposal which might accompany
>    the request to reopen the issue based on new information.  Ideally
>    evidence for these use cases would be provided in the form of real
>    world deployments of videos on the web.

I will pursue this advice from the Chairs and will advise when said evidence is ready. In the interim the Formal Objection remains, based upon the reason stated. 

Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 21:42:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:28 UTC