- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 18:03:16 -0400
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
On 08/30/2012 04:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 00:09 -0400, Judy Brewer wrote: >>> Given the dependency on an unknown date (decision availability >>> on Issue 204), and the overlap with scheduled vacations, we >>> request a date of [Issue 204 decision availability] + 3 weeks, >>> with the understanding that if we can have it ready earlier we >>> will do so. >> >> After doing some back and forth on this, including looking at the >> impact on the timeline, I suggest that the Chairs start the survey >> related to issue 30 on August 31st, and no later than that. If >> changes have to be made to any of the change proposals, those must >> be made before August 30th, 5PM EDT. > > At the request of the Director and the W3C Team, the Chairs are > holding off on the ISSUE-30 survey until an unknown time, but no > sooner than Wednesday next week. The latest outlook has now been revised to be "no sooner than 11 Sept". Current status on the expedited formal objection[1] is that it identifies a single paragraph to be removed. Two proposed replacements have been identified: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744#c0 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18745#c2 We have some indication that WAI ARIA would be the right place to discuss proposed wording: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0284.html No time schedule was mentioned for providing said wording. The same minutes suggested that "jurisdiction" was a key concern. The formal objection itself makes a similar case. As this may take some time to resolve, I would like to Robin Berjon to scope out what it would take to split out all ARIA integration from the HTML document into a separate spec that could proceed at a different pace from the rest of the document, and with the intent that said document could become a joint deliverable of the HTML WG and the PFWG. It looks like there currently are approximately 150 occurrences. $ grep "\baria\b" source | wc -l 149 Note: this request is just to scope out the effort, not to make the changes. The request is to get this information together -- possibly incomplete -- by September 11, noon ET. - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 22:03:50 UTC