RE: Formal objections status

(apologies for top-posting)

 

Hi Paul,

 

As you may have noted, the 2 FOs that I filed where actually topics on the
Agenda for today's TF call, but we did not get to them.  Specifically, I
have questions that I wanted to pose to my colleagues around both Issues:

 

Poster Alt (ISSUE-142): Subsequent to my Initial Objection, there was some
discussion about creating something inside of ARIA 1.1 to address this
problem, something along the lines of "aria-poster". I had some discussion
with Rich about this at last year's TPAC in Santa Clara, however since the
ARIA WG is highly focused on exiting CR for ARIA (1.0) there has been little
further discussion here.

 

With the ability to now produce Extension Specs, it also opens up a second
avenue for addressing the underlying problem of providing textual
equivalents to the @poster value whenever required (such as when that poster
image is not related to the subject matter of the video). [Sidebar: FWIW,
the CMS known as CQ5 (Adobe) features such an ability with regard to using
Flash-based video delivery today, and so there is some example of a "sorta"
implementation in the wild today.]  

 

Related to this option (yet seemingly unresolved to date) is the question
how Success Criteria is being measured, and what the 2 independent
implementations criteria actually looks like: in a response to this question
Maciej appeared to signal that, for example, 2 browsers with 1 AT, or 2 AT
with 1 browser would likely meet the *minimum* bar
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0419.html) yet
Sam has seemingly suggested that implementation is reserved for browsers
only ("Today there is only one mainstream browser that natively implements
longdesc." -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0455.html) I
have tried to follow this discussion as closely as possible, and from my
reading this question is still undecided (however if I have missed an email,
please advise).

 

Should the TF/PFWG decide to address this issue using one of the 2 methods
available (and I could support either, and would actively assist either
effort) then I see no reason why I could not remove the FO, but until such
time as a path forward is decided and embarked upon (with a goal of perhaps
HTML 5.1 timeframe) I cannot comment further. I suspect however that this
question will be discussed and resolved in advance of TPAC (or perhaps
during TPAC, which sadly I will not be attending this year), paving the way
for me removing the FO.

 

 

@hidden / tab focus (ISSUE 204): I appreciate that there are a number of
bugs working their way through the system seeking resolution on this issue,
and I have contributed in good faith to helping resolve this Issue. I
attempted to surface the problem that concerns me again during today's call
(as well as previously on list), and the Action Item on Cynthia to log a bug
against scripted event handlers that take tab-focus will go some way in
reducing the concern; outstanding however is the question of allowing aria
to point to @hidden form inputs (as the proposed replacement text suggests)
- again, form inputs require tab focus to be actionable, and yet the
proposed language says that this ability is to be removed. Thus there is a
contradiction here that remains unresolved. (see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0068.html) 

 

Since the new language has not yet been added to the ongoing Draft Spec, I
am unsure how/where to file a bug, and what to file it against. However, if
this problem, along with Cynthia's anticipated bug, are addressed within the
current 5.0 time-frame, then my over-arching concerns will be addressed and
I can withdraw my FO here as well.

 

 

So, in summary, I am feeling optimistic that I can indeed withdraw both FO's
should certain actions (seemingly already in flight) conspire to address the
concerns that prompted the FOs in the first place. I am reticent in doing so
*now* for fear that the issues get back-burnered, but a concrete signal that
this *will not* happen and that they will be addressed in the proposed 5.0
Timeframe (Issue 204) or proposed 5.1 Timeframe (Issue 142) would likely
suffice for me to do so.

 

So today, the answer remains "maybe", but hopefully the above helps to
clarify that in more detail.

 

JF

 

 

From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:12 AM
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net); John Foliot
(john@foliot.ca)
Cc: Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com);
Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org); www-archive@w3.org
Subject: Formal objections status

 

As you can tell I have been asking the authors of Formal Objections about
whether they want to maintain their Formal Objections.  We have received
several responses already and the some FOs have been withdrawn and some
maintained.  The current status is at:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html 

 

Four of the remaining Formal Objections are yours (2 each).

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0051.html 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0056.html 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0079.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0078.html

 

We are trying to schedule our CR call with the Director for before or during
TPAC.  It would be good to know if you are able to withdraw any of your
objections BEFORE that call with the Director.  

 

Can you give us an idea of when you will be able to respond to my queries on
your Formal Objections?

 

/paulc

 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329