Re: PROPOSAL: Procedure to Promote Progress With Accessibility Issues in HTML5

John Foliot wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Laura Carlson wrote:
>>>> My suggestion is that everbody focus on filling public-html (and
>>>> wai-xtech and the teleconferences) with actual concrete proposals.
>>> Our proposal is real.
>> I was unclear.  I meant concrete technical proposals on specific
>> features to add to the work products of the HTML Working Group (i.e.,
>> specs).
> We have offered a concrete procedural proposal that is very real, very much 
> required, and is seriously and in good-faith submitted to the working group 
> and chairs as a formal request.  Deal with it as such.  Either the proposal 
> has merit and should be implemented (with or without further discussion on 
> *merit*), or it is without merit and will be discarded by the chairs.  Being 
> 'disappointed' and attempting to re-direct the discussion away from a 
> legitimate request is the very reason *why* we are requesting an 
> entrenchment of formal procedure - all too often it is exactly that tactic 
> that is used to dismiss concerns - redirect and obfuscate (and sometimes 
> spread around a little bit of FUD for good measure).

If you would like CVS access to work on a Process Document, please 
provide Mike Smith with your ssh2 key.

>> As an aside, you seem to want to increase collaboration.  As a general
>> rule, it is best to start with an open discussion, on public-html.
> Sadly Sam, we've already seen where that takes us, which is into endless 
> loops of parry and thrust with no real progress being made.  The PFWG 
> specifically responded to the @summary question on June 3rd, 2009 by 
> requesting that it remain in HTML5; Ian bickered back and forth with Janina 
> over a series of emails, and then deemed to include @summary in the draft 
> spec as an 'obsolete' attribute with guidance that says that authors should 
> not use this attribute.  Says who?  Ian Hickson? Sam Ruby? The IRC gang? 
> Enough!

The intent is to has Last Call October-ish.  If you would like to see a 
document that proceeds to Last Call contain something that you have been 
unable to convince Ian to include in his draft, I encourage you to 
either produce one yourself, or to find someone who is willing to do so.

It will be up to the Working Group to decide which (if any) of these 
documents proceed to Last Call.

>> Starting with a PROPOSAL with ten signatories is an anti-pattern, i.e.,
>> something to be avoided.
> Making ad-hoc decisions via an IRC channel is an anti-process, i.e., 
> something to be avoided.  There is little transparency, it is done in real 
> time (when not all interested parties might be available for input), and it 
> does not allow for proper discussion and debate.  Having two working groups 
> (HTML WG and WHAT WG) producing one specification, one without proper 
> oversight or process, is an anti-pattern as well, and also something to be 
> avoided, yet it exists.

Everything in Ian's document is provisional.  None of the decisions made 
exclusively in IRC are recognized as such by the W3C.  Every opportunity 
will be provided for people to provide feedback, argue for change, 
and/or to provide alternatives themselves.

>> I realize that people are frustrated[1].  John says that "supposedly"
>> there is an open issue.  There is no supposedly about it.  There is an
>> issue[2], and its status is open.  Yes, on summary Ian has proposed
>> specific spec text.  To the best of my knowledge, he is the only one who
>> has done so.
> This is patently false.  Steve Faulkner reminded you that he forth a 
> proposal [1] - at your request(!) - and the PFWG also provided official and 
> reasoned input [2], both via official channels.  In contrast, where is the 
> 'official' suggestions to make @summary obsolete recorded? Where is the 
> decision to now write "Authors should not specify the summary attribute on 
> table elements." in the specification recorded? If the issue is currently 
> open, then the draft specification should state *just that* and nothing 
> more.  Instead, it currently states Ian's opinion as 'fact', a decision 
> reached in some obscure, undocumented way, to which developers (Henri 
> Sivonen for example) are now developing code to address. It is *exactly* 
> because of these types of moves on behalf of the editor that a more formal 
> and accountable process is required, which is what the Proposal requests.

If you would like to have a document which states your opinion as 
'fact', you are encouraged to produce one.  Or you can work with Joshue 
O Connor on drafting a Straw Poll.

Before proceeding to Last Call, there will be a need for the chairs to 
assess the consensus of the working group.  Until then, all drafts 
produced are "unstable and does not meet all Working Group 
requirements." [3]

>> I am looking forward to concrete proposals on this issue.  Failing that,
>> I am looking forward to an open discussion on the wording of a vote or
>> straw poll.  Failing that, I am fully prepared to recommend that we
>> proceed with the one and only tangible proposal that we do have.
> Again, there are currently 2 proposals, plus the *consensus* request from 
> PFWG to retain @summary as envisioned in HTML4, but with better guidance and 
> instruction, so your perception that there is only "one tangible proposal" 
> is mistaken.

I stand corrected.

> JF

- Sam Ruby

> [1]
> [2]


Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 19:02:09 UTC