On 3/28/2012 10:11 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I don't have answers and don't think it is up to me to provide those
answers, its what I would expect of the W3C management.
That's fair. Be assured that we are aware and we work on these issues
intensively. But not every easily stated problem has an easily
implemented solution.
I already spend a lot of my free time working on W3C HTML
accessibility standardisation and participate in the process community
group.
Appreciated.
If you guys are already aware, then apologies for repeating the
obvious, but to date I haven't noticed any positive change despite the
awareness.
By all means, feel free to bring things to our attention. No apologies
necessary. I was not pushing back on your raising issues - only trying
to understand them better.
In my view I witnessed a hollowing out of the HTML WG with a
concomitant reduction of its ability to participate meaningfully in
the standardisation of HTML.
I sincerely hope things do get better.
regards
Stevef
On 28 March 2012 14:50, Jeff Jaffe <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
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>
