- From: Earl Johnson <Earl.Johnson@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:30:45 -0800
- To: wai-xtech@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote: > > At 7:33 PM +0100 13 12 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >> Moved to member private mail. >> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:12:47 +0100, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca> wrote: >> >>> Evans, Donald wrote: >>> >>>> We have a new location for the working document. >>>> >>>> Please bookmark: http://dev.aol.com/dhtml_style_guide >> >> >> PLEASE do not change locations of documents, and please keep W3C >> working documents in W3C space. See http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI > > > The short answer is that Don's page > - is not the draft Best Practices Guide > http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices > - is not a W3C document > - doesn't say it is a W3C document > > .. but the short answer is too short. > > The full story is also that > * Yes, PFWG expects to follow the recommendations of the > AOL-organized caucus on widget feel, in the main. > * Yes, we have asked them to use our <wai-xtech@w3.org> mailing list > for their discussions. > > On the other hand the caucus Tom Wlodkowski has organized: > * is staying out of "how to code it" discussions that we have to > address in the Best Practices > * needs a record of just what they _are_ working on for focus > and momentum maintenance > * is not limiting itself to widgets that have WAI-ARIA defined roles > > > .. history: > > We tried to give the keystroke-choice discussions "their sandbox" in > the form of a Best Practices Guide appendix that collected the > key-binding usage from all the structures and widgets. And we decided > to run the Best Practices work in the W3C (moin-moin) Wiki. This plan > proved un-maintainable as document technology. > > So Don is supporting Tom's discussions with a cumulative record on > the AOL Web Page and we are handling the compare/contrast of those > results with what is in the W3C Best Practices Guide "manually." > > I hope that with this explanation you can see the approach has > benefits for the accomplishment of our job in WAI-ARIA. > > Al > >> >> W3C has a whole range of tools that can be used to manage stuff on >> their website, from Amaya, Winie and Jigedit (save to >> http://www.w3.org/somewhere/you/are/authorised ) to direct CVS trees >> and version control. Putting W3C specs on the site of a single vendor >> is totally inappropriate and conveys the wrong message about W3C's >> development process. If a spec is scribbled together originally by a >> single developer it is reasonable that they post their draft, and if >> we agree to work on it then it is reasonable that that draft note >> further work takes place at W3C. >> >> Having it branded by a particular vendor is totally unacceptable. I >> realise it may seem convenient at times to use the tools you are >> familiar with in-house, but it makes it very hard when I get internal >> questions about whether W3C is *really* a level playing field if >> people come up with things that look so much like they are >> proprietary. The W3C has had a consistent history of asking >> individuals and organisations to work in W3C space and that process is >> important to its members and to the public. >> >> best >> >> Chaals >> >> -- >> Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group >> je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk >> http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com > Gotta agree with Charles. I believe this was one of the reasons OpenOffice, the Linux Foundation, the W3C, and other [*].org opensource things got set up. So far we've all been working for us all and more [John Q.], it's important that the source of all that "us" energy be reflected on a "this is by and for us all" website. Having said this, wasn't the best practices stuff moved from W3C because the styleguide work isn't a "sanctioned?" effort? My recollection is an implication of that status was that by their rules, they couldn't host the styleguide wiki as a result separate from the technology issue Al mentions. Finally, I just want something that's going to be taken seriously outside one company once the styleguide goes 1.0. In the end tho, this work should ultimately reside on a more neutral something.org site. Is this the plan? Earl > >
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 23:36:11 UTC