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

 sam ruby wrote:
"3) Manu has indicated a willingness to work with Laura, John, and Steve.
  For all I know that willingness may not be reciprocated, or may not
work out.  In fact, every indication I have seen is that Laura and John
would rather work on a process document than the spec itself.  If that
is indeed what they wish to work on, then I will support them as I have
supported Manu - separately."

I would be more than happy to work with Manu, which I have indicated to him
offlist already.

I am still unsure whether collaboration is actually useful in terms of the
current procedural regime:
If i write a spec that only has changes to the alt section i would think it
more likely to gain support, than if it also included RDFa, thus i am
discouraged from collaboration.

I consider a much fairer and more manageable way to handle it would be to
allow people to write modified sections or subsection and then put each
section up to a vote if consensus cannot be achieved.
if there is not a section or subsection that has a draft alternative has
been produced and there are no formal objections realted to it, then it can
be considered as having consensus and be left in the draft for last call.
example:
a vote on 3 choices

ians image section
steves image section
person x's image section

which ever gains the most support is the one that goes into the FPWD for
last call.

another example:

manus RDFa section
ian's microdata section
both microdate and RDFa

 which ever gains the most support is the one that goes into the FPWD for
last call.

then we could end up with a document that is the product of the W3C HTML
working group.

-- 
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