Re: summary issue closed

hi  all,

>Sorry to jump in here, but it seems there are some misunderstandings.

your input is always welcome

>If anyone wants to have a telecon, they don't have to wait for Dan or
>Chris to announce one. Just speak to our W3C staff contact, Mike, and he
>can arrange a telecon whenever. Indeed, I am sure our chairs are happy for
>other people to use the regular telecon time even if they're not around to
>chair themselves.

All well, but I thought that there was some structure or process in place as
far as telecon's were concerned. The usefulness of having a chair attending
is that issues can be discussed with someone who (hopefully) understands the
WG and W3C process and can advise on such matters.

Some of us in the working group have been seeking to understand the best way
to raise issues and have them discussed within the working group and if
warranted, and consensus cannot be achieved, seek to bring the issue to a
formal vote. It was suggested that one of the routes to officially raise
issues was to get them listed in the issue tracker (which is what both Josh
and I have done). What i would expect from this process is the opportunity
to have an issue fully reviewed and not closed until all parties (WG
members) involved agree on the outcome.

Forgive me for misunderstanding the process, I didn't realise that raising
an issue on the tracker was only a list item for the editor(s) to tick or
cross at their discretion.



On 23/03/2008, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry to jump in here, but it seems there are some misunderstandings.
>
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> >
> > in february Josh, raised an issue in the issue tracker [1] (via
> > jgraham) about the dropping of the summary attribute, . He was preparing
> to
> > discuss it at the teleconference a few weeks ago, but ran out of time
> (there
> > has not been a teleconference since , so no chance for further
> discussion).
>
> If anyone wants to have a telecon, they don't have to wait for Dan or
> Chris to announce one. Just speak to our W3C staff contact, Mike, and he
> can arrange a telecon whenever. Indeed, I am sure our chairs are happy for
> other people to use the regular telecon time even if they're not around to
> chair themselves.
>
> Please, feel free to take initiative! :-)
>
>
> > We have discussed it privately since and thought it may be best to get
> > PF WG to review the issue. Now the issue has been closed by the editor.
>
> That just means I looked at it and took into account all the feedback
> raised so far. There hasn't been much research on the matter (indeed,
> there hasn't been much discussion even); obviously if there is any new
> information, such as a clear description of a problem that HTML5 doesn't
> solve, I would be very happy to take it into account.
>
>
> > So now he will have to re-raise the issue, which he didn't get chance to
> > discuss in the first place, but '"without mentioning summary="" ' (as
> > per [2])
>
> Just to clarify, my request to not mention summary="" is merely a
> restatement of earlier requests to very clearly separate the description
> of the problem and the description of the proposed solutions (and
> discussion of their pros and cons). In the past, we have had difficulty
> separating the two topics (problem and solution), which makes it very
> hard to do technically sound language design. (Just look at the namespace
> thread recently for more examples of this.)
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html