On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:13 AM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the > stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation): > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/ > HTML5 Image Description Extension (longdesc) > > There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla > is one) open until January 16. > > If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the > review, or if you think Mozilla should voice support or opposition > to the specification, please say so in this thread.
I think we should not voice support for this specification (for reasons already stated in this thread). As for abstention vs. opposition, I'd prefer us to voice opposition in the REC transition questionnaire. For reasons already stated in this thread, it's probably not a good use of time to put effort into writing a long essay for the reasons for opposition. Therefore, I suggest choosing the opposition option on the form and just pasting the URL http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html in the free-form field. That the Formal Objection was overruled shows that FOs are not an effective mechanism for dealing with dysfunction at the W3C. I don't expect our response to make a difference when it comes to longdesc transitioning to a REC, but I think we shouldn't stop signaling to the W3C staff that the way longdesc was handled (not just the FO but also the way the issue was allowed to poison the HTML WG to the point that productive contributors pretty much left the non-Task Force parts of the WG) is not OK--especially when such signaling is as easy as choosing an option on a form. > (I'd note, > however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make > comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues > for the first time at this stage.) I'm aware that this is boilerplate text, but in this case, it's definitely not a matter of bringing up fundamental issues first time at this stage. > (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html . > I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's > "implementation" of it as support for the spec, which is rather > galling considering that a big piece of what led to that > implementation was an online harrassment campaign against a Mozilla > UX designer to get the feature accepted. I'm not sure how much it's > worth fighting it at this point, although probably a first step in > that fight would be to remove our implementation.) Given the circumstances, I think we shouldn't feel that we have a duty to change code in order to register opposition to the REC transition. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
