Re: example: the HTML WG process is not working

I want to clarify one point that I implied by this statement

"I suspect while this change will be applied to the W3C HTML5 but not to
the WHAT WG, resulting in further divergence between the 2 specs and
further dilution of standardized authoring advice (in this case)."

The active involvement of people, such as the editor in the HTML WG
process, does not necessarily result in standardization of HTML being
advanced. If the editor does not agree with a change to HTML decided by the
working group its only applied to the W3C HTML5 spec [1].

[1]
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#is-this-html5
?

regards
Stevef

On 28 March 2012 11:35, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Timeline of an issue: this is an example of a re-ocurring pattern [1]
> Over a  5 month period, feedback and input was called for, a detailed
> proposal was provided - total silence ensued, after the process is complete
> the editor comments on IRC.
> I suspect while this change will be applied to the W3C HTML5 but not to
> the WHAT WG, resulting in further divergence between the 2 specs and
> further dilution of standardized authoring advice (in this case).
>
> Timeline of an issue:
>
> ** Bug 14937* <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937> - Replace
> poor coding example for figure with multiple images opened: 2011-11-25
> 21:20:52 UTC
>
> * editor rejects https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c1
> <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c1%20>2011-12-07
> 23:01:38 UTC
>
> Status: Rejected
> Change Description: no spec change
> Rationale: This isn't an antipattern. It is a best practice. If current ATs
> don't make it accessible, then I recommend approaching AT vendors and
> explaining to them that they're not properly exposing HTML semantics.
>
> * feedback provided on rejection:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14937#c2
>
> * No further response from editor
>
> * escalated to issue: Issue 190<https://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/190> 2011-12-08
> 10:27:42 UTC
>
> * I submit a proposal<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle_captions>
> :  January 18th, 2012.
>
> * Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0127.html> Wed,
> 25 Jan 2012 14:42:45
>
> * NO counter proposals or feedback on  proposal
>
> * CfC: Close ISSUE-190 coding-example by Amicable Resolution
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0463.html>issued Tue,
> 28 Feb 2012 13:23:27
>
> As we have received no counter-proposals or alternate proposals, the
> chairs are issuing a call for consensus on the proposal that we do have.
>
> If no objections are raised to this call by March 7th 2012, we will
> direct the editor to make the proposed change. If anybody would like to
> raise an objection during this time, we strongly encourage them to
> accompany their objection with a concrete and complete change proposal.
>
>
> * No responses to CFC
>
> * Chairs issue: Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-190 coding-example by
> Amicable Resolution
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0731.html>Mon,
> 26 Mar 2012
>
> Commenst by editor on IRC: 2012-03-28 (it appears that this is the first
> time the editor has looked at the proposal)
>
>    1. # <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-15> [00:16]
>    <Hixie>
>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle_captions#Details
>    2. # <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-16> [00:16]
>    <Hixie> really?
>    3. # <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120328#l-17> [00:17]
>    <Hixie> we're actually going to put an example in the spec _encouraging_
>    nested figures?
>
>
> [1]
>
>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-192 title-attribute by Amicable
>    Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0558.html>
>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-188: generic-track-format by
>    Amicable Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0557.html>
>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-187 validity-stability by
>    Amicable Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0556.html>
>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-182 footnote-recommendation by
>    Amicable Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0555.html>
>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-179 av_param by Amicable
>    Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0554.html>
>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>    - Working Group Decision: Close ISSUE-170 rel-uri-valid by Amicable
>    Resolution<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0553.html>
>     *(Tuesday, 20 March)*
>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>
>
>