Re: example: the HTML WG process is not working from Jeff Jaffe on 2012-03-28 (www-archive@w3.org from March 2012)

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:39:14 -0400
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <4F730672.4000406@w3.org>
Steve,

I apologize, but I don't know what this is.

Is this:

1. fyi, about timelines of issues?
2. An escalation of the Chairs for not dealing with this issue per the 
HTML 5 WG process?
3. An observation that the finalized HTML 5 spec as it moves forward 
(LC--> CR --> REC) will diverge from a continually updated WHAT WG 
Living Standard (with presumably re-syncing as we move to HTML.next)?
4. Something else?

Thanks.

Jeff

On 3/28/2012 8:19 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <http://www.paciellogroup.com> |
>     www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> |
>     www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner>
>     HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
>     dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
>     <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/>
>     Web Accessibility Toolbar -
>     www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>     <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 12:39:25 UTC