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

RE: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:24:09 -0700
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, <janina@rednote.net>, "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>, <jbrewer@w3.org>, "'Jeff Jaffe'" <jeff@w3.org>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01b601cd974c$5fc0c530$1f424f90$@ca>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Similarly, I was surprised by what is stated for Issue-194
> full-transcript attribute :
>     Allow the A11y TF the authority to produce an extension spec that
> includes full-transcript. 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 at that time.
> We already have two change proposals for this issue that both came out
> of the a11y TF. I was under impression that the next step was a
> decision by the chairs. Are you now expecting the a11y TF to decide
> between the two change proposals and come up with spec text for it?

As a point of clarification, there are actually 3 Change Proposals that were
presented to the Working Group - the third being that the question be
deferred to HTML.next.

I further note that this 3rd option was strongly opposed by the a11yTF:

	"The HTML-A11Y Task Force has resolved objection to the Zero Change
Proposal on Issue-194 without objection as recorded at:

I echo Silvia's surprise, as I too was expecting a decision from the Chairs
at this time.

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 16:25:00 UTC

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