- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:01:04 +0000
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
> From: Edward O'Connor [mailto:eoconnor@apple.com] > > Hi Laura, > > You wrote: > > > What does this mean for ISSUE-30? > > Quoting from the Plan 2014 document[1]: > > > To prevent confusion, we've identified how each of the remaining open > > issues will be handled: > > > > 30 longdesc attribute > > > > Allow the A11y TF the authority to produce an extension spec that > > defines a longdesc attribute. If such a specification obtains > > consensus and meets the proposed CR exit criteria by 2014Q2 it could > > be folded back into the core HTML spec by that time. This can be > > combined with a solution for issue 203 and/or with work on a purported > > replacement.[2] > > > > We ask those that oppose instating a longdesc attribute to focus on > > producing a better solution, and meanwhile not oppose those that wish > > to pursue longdesc via an extension spec or making progress towards > > demonstrating that it meets the identified CR exit criteria. > > Ted > > 1. http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html > 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0003.html I am still new to the group and trying to get a handle on the process overall. In this proposed draft plan can the a11y TF simply take the authored CP to re-instate longdesc and call it an extension spec? I assume format changes would be required, but I thought the heavy lift had been done to define it. Based on the number of times I have seen reference to this issue being expedited, put on hold, had dates shifted, etc. I get the sense that nobody wants to pull the trigger on this either way. Off-loading it to the a11y TF absolves the chairs and WG of making a decision (or going through a survey process). From my extremely limited experience with the process it also wholly shifts the burden to the a11y TF. This may be more appropriate, I just don't know. What I do know is that I'd hate to see this come to "resolution" because it gets mired in the process (where it seems to have already been lost) instead of a group decision. Am I just misunderstanding and/or being paranoid?
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 13:01:36 UTC