Re: CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension
Despite lingering concerns about removing a valid attribute from the table of attributes in the document, in the interest of cooperation and collaborative consensus building I will agree with this CfC. JF On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Léonie Watson <t...@tink.uk> wrote: > Hello WP, > > This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) on the following proposal for > referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension specification [1]. > The CFC is posted to public-webapps@w3.org because this is the official > WP email list, and copied to public-h...@w3.org. > > The proposal: > > 1. Remove the longdesc attribute from the table of attributes in HTML core. > 2. Remove the IDL information for the longdesc attribute from HTML core. > 3. Keep the longdesc examples in HTML core **. > 4. Create a WG Note listing known extension specifications ***. > 5. Include a link to the HTML Extension Specifications Note from HTML core > (probably in the index). > > ** Examples throughout the HTML specification are informative, and we > include informative examples and information for other specifications and > extensions > elsewhere in HTML core. > > *** We anticipate that the Note will be updated as we identify new/other > extension specifications. > > We are still exploring different ways of responding to a CFC. Please > choose one of the following methods: > > 1. Reply by email to this thread. > 2. Reply or +1 to the original proposal comment on Github [2]. > > There is no need to use more than one method. The WP chairs will collate > the results across all channels. > > Please respond by end of day on Friday 12th August. Positive responses are > encouraged, but silence will be taken as consent with the proposal. > > Thanks > Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/ > [2] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507#issuecomment-237068400 > -- > @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem > > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Strategist Deque Systems Inc. john.fol...@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)
Hi Marcos, While it may feel spammy to you, this is a long-standing part of the W3C Consensus process, and generally speaking all CfCs include the following: "Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence will be considered as assent." On the surface, and in principle, I disagree that the "only thing that matters is objections", as visible signs of strong support matter too. Receiving a handful of +1 emails is to me an acceptable process (unless this group chooses to use another means of confirming consensus: perhaps WBS surveys or similar?) JF On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:14 AM, <mar...@marcosc.com> wrote: > Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of > this mailing list. > > For the purpose of progressing a spec, the only thing that matters is > objections. > > > On 3 Jun 2016, at 12:36 AM, Mona Rekhi <mona.re...@ssbbartgroup.com> > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > Mona Rekhi > > SSB BART Group > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] > > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 8:48 AM > > To: 'public-webapps WG' <public-webapps@w3.org> > > Subject: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR) > > > > Hello WP, > > > > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current > HTML Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been > posted to public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG. > > > > Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@w3.org no later than end > of day on 10 June. Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence > will be considered as assent. > > > > The current HTML5.1 WD [1] improves upon HTML5. It includes updates that > make it more reliable, more readable and understandable, and a better match > for reality. Substantial changes between HTML5 and HTML5.1 can be found in > the spec [2]. > > > > When a specification moves to CR it triggers a Call For Exclusions, per > section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [3]. No substantive additions can be > made to a specification in CR without starting a new Call for Exclusions, > so we will put HTML5.1 into "feature freeze". It is possible to make > editorial updates as necessary, and features marked "At Risk" may be > removed if found not to be interoperable. > > > > The following features are considered "at risk". If we cannot identify > at least two shipping implementations, they will be marked "at risk" in the > CR and may be removed from the Proposed Recommendation. > > > > keygen element. [issue 43] > > label as a reassociatable element [issue 109] Fixing > requestAnimationFrame to 60Hz, not implementation-defined [issues > 159/375/422] registerContentHandler [Issue 233] inputmode attribute of the > input element [issue 269] autofill of form elements [issue 372] menu, > menuitem and context menus. [issue 373] dialog element [issue 427] Text > tracks exposing in-band metadata best practices [Issue 461] datetime and > datatime-local states of the input element [Issue 462] > > > > Please share implementation details for any of these features on Github. > To mark other features "at risk", please identify them by 10th June > (ideally by filing an issue and providing a test case). > > > > At the same time we move HTML5.1 into CR, we plan to continue updating > the Editor's Draft, and in the next few weeks we expect to post a Call for > Consensus to publish it as the First Public Working Draft of HTML5.2, so > improving HTML will continue without a pause. It also means that changes > that didn't make it into > > HTML5.1 will not have long to wait before being incorporated into the > specification. > > > > Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors. > > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/ > > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/changes.html#changes > > [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion > > > > [issue 43] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/43 > > [issue 109] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/109 > > [issues 159/375/422] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/159 and links > [issue 233] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/233 > > [issue 269] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/269 > > [issue 372] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/372 > > [issue 373] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/373 > > [issue 427] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/427 > > [Issue 461] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/461 > > [Issue 462] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/462 > > > > > > -- > > @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Consultant Deque Systems Inc. john.fol...@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)
+1 JF On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryla...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to publish WD > > > > > > * katie * > > Katie Haritos-Shea > Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA) > > Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryla...@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | > Office: 703-371-5545 > > > -Original Message- > From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] > Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 8:53 AM > To: public-h...@w3.org > Subject: FW: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR) > > Please respond on public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for the WP > WG. > Thanks. > > > -Original Message- > From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] > Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48 > To: 'public-webapps WG' <public-webapps@w3.org> > Subject: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR) > > Hello WP, > > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML > Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been posted > to public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG. > > Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@w3.org no later than end > of day on 10 June. Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence > will be considered as assent. > > The current HTML5.1 WD [1] improves upon HTML5. It includes updates that > make it more reliable, more readable and understandable, and a better match > for reality. Substantial changes between HTML5 and HTML5.1 can be found in > the spec [2]. > > When a specification moves to CR it triggers a Call For Exclusions, per > section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [3]. No substantive additions can be > made to a specification in CR without starting a new Call for Exclusions, > so we will put HTML5.1 into "feature freeze". It is possible to make > editorial updates as necessary, and features marked "At Risk" may be > removed if found not to be interoperable. > > The following features are considered "at risk". If we cannot identify at > least two shipping implementations, they will be marked "at risk" in the CR > and may be removed from the Proposed Recommendation. > > keygen element. [issue 43] > label as a reassociatable element [issue 109] Fixing requestAnimationFrame > to 60Hz, not implementation-defined [issues 159/375/422] > registerContentHandler [Issue 233] inputmode attribute of the input element > [issue 269] autofill of form elements [issue 372] menu, menuitem and > context menus. [issue 373] dialog element [issue 427] Text tracks exposing > in-band metadata best practices [Issue 461] datetime and datatime-local > states of the input element [Issue 462] > > Please share implementation details for any of these features on Github. > To mark other features "at risk", please identify them by 10th June > (ideally by filing an issue and providing a test case). > > At the same time we move HTML5.1 into CR, we plan to continue updating the > Editor's Draft, and in the next few weeks we expect to post a Call for > Consensus to publish it as the First Public Working Draft of HTML5.2, so > improving HTML will continue without a pause. It also means that changes > that didn't make it into > HTML5.1 will not have long to wait before being incorporated into the > specification. > > Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors. > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/ > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/changes.html#changes > [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion > > [issue 43] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/43 > [issue 109] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/109 > [issues 159/375/422] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/159 and links > [issue 233] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/233 > [issue 269] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/269 > [issue 372] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/372 > [issue 373] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/373 > [issue 427] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/427 > [Issue 461] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/461 > [Issue 462] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/462 > > > -- > @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem > > > > > > > > > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Consultant Deque Systems Inc. john.fol...@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
