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

Re: A11y TF Amendment [was: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2012-10-04]

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:02:43 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20121010090243.GC1852@stripey.com>
Sam Ruby writes:

> The proposal is to add the following at the end of the "Scope of Work"
> section:

Hi there. This generally looks good, but I have a few questions about

>   The task force may also create specifications that extend
>   deliverables of the HTML Working Group, in the area of
>   accessibility.

Makes sense. I'm presuming it's up to the Accessibility Task Force to
determine whether something is "in the area of of accessibility", which
seems fair enough, since it's their field of interest.

However, areas often overlap; a specification affecting accessibility
could also end up affecting other areas, so turn out to be of interest
more widely.

>   The Accessibility Task Force will have decision authority over the
>   contents of such extension specifications.

OK; it's their specification.

>   Any such specifications will be considered jointly produced by the
>   HTML Working Group and PFWG, for purposes of W3C Publication. This
>   means that, as with any w3c joint task force deliverable, both
>   Working Groups must approve transitions such as First Public Working
>   Draft or Last Call.

(I'm interpreting the sentence with the "must" in it to mean "an
extension specification can only go through a transition if the working
groups approve it", rather than "The working groups MUST approve
extension specifications; they have no choice in the matter". If I'm
wrong in that, please let me know.)

So if the HTML Working Group judges an extension specification to be
unacceptable, it can decide not to permit its transition. It can't
insist on any particular modifications to the content to make it

>   Members of either Working Group who have technical comments or
>   objections on Task Force publications are expected to raise them in
>   the context of the Task Force.

What's the effect of "expected" there in practice? If somebody makes a
technical objection in an unexpected place, such as in the HTML Working
Group, what are the consequences of that objection being made there,
compared to if the same objection were made in the expected place?

Will such objections be ignored? If a technical objection is made when
the Accessibility Task Force has presented an extension specification to
the Working Group for a transition, would that be taken into account at
that stage as a possible reason for not approving the decision, or would
the objection be set aside for not having been made in the expected

Also, what does "in the context of the Task Force" mean? Does it
specifically mean by being a member of the task force (which has
participation requirements of minimum hours per month)? Or would e-mail
to the task force's mailing list count? If the latter, would it be
sufficient to send mail there after the task force has presented an
extension specification for a transition?

My concern is that if the task force produces an extension specification
which happens to have consequences outside the realm of that task
force's specialization, that all members of the HTML Working Group are
able to provide technical feedback, including objections, which are
properly taken into account, and without it being necessary for members
wanting to make such objections to join the task force (with the
participation requirements that entails).

New series of TV puzzle show 'Only Connect' (some questions by me)
Mondays at 20:30 on BBC4, or iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/onlyconnect
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 09:03:16 UTC

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