Re: Formal objections status

cc: += chaals

On 10/11/2012 03:41 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>
> 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).

I don't think you missed an email, but I do think you read in something 
into my comments that I did not mean to imply.  That could very well be 
my fault.

tl;dr: the exit criteria should match what is in the spec.

longer answer:

I'm hopeful that the spec that Charles produces eventually states that 
while longdesc is a good feature for authors to insert in their markup, 
it may very well be the case that end users will need to install and 
configure additional tools in order to make use of this feature.

I don't want to dwell on the past, but previous proposals did not aim 
for this.

As to the future: if the spec indeed sets expectations properly, then 
passing the exit criteria should not be a problem, and passing the exit 
criteria and showing adoption and conceding that there is some misuse 
will win out over purely "philosophical" objections (your words, as I 
recall).

I will add that an extension specification that does not intend to be 
integrated into the base HTML5 specification can very well propose a 
different set of exit criteria for that spec.

Does that help clarify?

> 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.

Just to clarify, the chairs have asked for a meeting with the Director 
*before* TPAC.  In fact, plan 2014 states that we will forward the 
Formal Objections "immediately" after the plan is approved:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#plan

(see second bullet)

If you believe that the path forward is either to address this via a 
future ARIA specification OR (at least initially) an extension 
specification, then I would encourage you to withdraw this Formal 
Objection at this time.

> *@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.

I encourage you to file a bug ASAP and propose specific language which 
would address your concern.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 20:52:18 UTC