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

Issue 30 (Was: RE: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:01:04 +0000
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E295A31@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC