On 3/28/2012 9:24 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Well if you think it is a healthy state of affairs that important
stakeholders (ie various high profile implementor employees) don't
participate in the working group because they consider it to be a
joke, and publically state as much on a regular basis, then full steam
ahead.
No I don't think that is at all healthy.
The divergence between HTML5 and the HTML living standard has little
to do with snapshot versus continuous updates it has everything to do
with the perception of who's hands the development of HTML is in.
As a working group member all I can do is raise issues when i see
them, the current non participation behvaiour of some folk works to my
benefit in terms of getting the changes I want to see accepted, but
the resulting divergence hurts developers and users.
Yes, I agree that more participation is better. I work on it every day.
I would rather have robust debate about changes than acceptance trough
non participation and forking, but that would involve all parties
acting in good faith.
I would love to have a robust debate about changes. That is why I asked
what you were trying to accomplish with the email.
At one level, your email merely informed me and Philippe about some
facts that we are already aware.
I didn't see any proposal for changes.
At a broader level, the AB is looking at broader changes in our process,
but I'm not sure if that is the type of change you are proposing.
regards
Stevef
On 28 March 2012 14:10, Jeff Jaffe <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
On 3/28/2012 8:56 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
Hi Jeff,
this is an example of a bug that was escalated as per the HTML WG
process that went rough the process and was deemed as having
consensus in the working group not because there is consensus,
but because people who may disagree with the change did not
participate.
Not sure what to do with this observation. Our specs are always a
consensus of those that participate. If some choose not to
participate then the spec will not reflect their views.
The editor obviously disagreed as he rejected the bug, but did
not enter into any further discussion, his recent remarks on IRC
strongly suggest he thinks its a bad idea.
If the process is designed to standardise HTML then its not
working, as I point out, when the editor disagrees with a change
he simply creates another fork between the specs or to put it
another way if the working group does not accept what the editor
has in the spec another fork is created.
Not sure what to do with this observation, either. The process is
for the Chairs to determine the consensus of the Working Group
even if the editor disagrees. Sounds like that is what is
happening. What are the alternatives? The editor is entitled to
his opinion if he disagrees. And the WG is entitled to their
opinion if they disagree with the editor.
In terms of the divergence of the specs, I think it is a success
story that we have maintained alignment as long as we have. And I
agree it would be highly desirable to continue to maintain
alignment for HTML 5, as well as HTML.next. But it is
mathematically impossible for us to freeze a REC level HTML 5 and
expect that to be in perfect alignment with a changing WHAT WG LS.
We appear to have gone from a state where there was active
participation to a state where there is passive denial of the
legitimacy of the process resulting in a consensual non-consensus.
none of which can be described with a straight face as a working
process.
regards
stevef
On 28 March 2012 13:39, Jeff Jaffe <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
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>
--
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>
--
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>
