- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:17:26 -0400
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 06/16/2011 07:03 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 13:33 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 06/15/2011 12:48 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote: >>> Hi Sam, >>> Bijan Parsia has commented on my recent post that >>> >>> "the current HTMLWG has made these decisions based on consensus is >>> pretty easy to show false" >>> >>> I asked him to elucidate and he did >>> http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2011/06/html5-accessibility-chops-conflicting-advice-and-requirements/comment-page-1/#comment-14653 >>> >>> I can understand if you are not interested in commenting on this, but >>> would be interested to hear your thoughts >> >> We have forks over items over which there was no objections: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0000.html >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0132.html > > You don't seem to be replying (in a clear way at least) to Bijan's > point. The point being that evidently there isn't consensus but the lack > of consensus doesn't manifest through W3C procedures. In those two examples at least, we provided more than ample opportunity to participate. We also have an agreed to Decision Policy, and a mechanism to report bugs against same. - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 13:17:56 UTC