12726 2011-05-23 21:08:41 +0000 Document should be on the Note-track 2015-01-29 19:38:25 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 alt techniques (editor: Steven Faulkner) unspecified PC Linux RESOLVED FIXED a11y, a11y_text-alt P2 normal --- 1 rubys shane eoconnor faulkner.steve lachlan.hunt laura.lee.carlson mike mjs Paul.Cotton philipj public-html-a11y public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking shane public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 48709 0 rubys 2011-05-23 21:08:41 +0000 Bug entered on behalf of Lachlan Hunt: I object to this document being on the Rec-track. These are guidelines, and as such, they should be non-normative descriptions referring to the normative requirements in the HTML specification itself. If this document is to be published, it should instead be on the Note-track. --- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011May/0051.html 48974 1 Paul.Cotton 2011-05-31 19:48:23 +0000 I do NOT believe the Normativity of a specification is necesarily the test of whether it should be on the Recommendation track or not. The real test for me is if the owning WG plans to maintain the specification or not. See Section 7.5 "Ending Work on a Technical Report": http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#tr-end For example the XML Schema Primer is a W3C Recommendation but obviously that specification does not contain normative text. See XML Schema Primer 2nd Edition as proof that the XML Schema WG actively maintained this specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-0-20041028/ On the other hand the WS-Policy Primer was published as a WG Note since that WG explicitly decided it did NOT want to maintain the specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-primer-20071112/ /paulc 49144 2 faulkner.steve 2011-06-03 09:36:42 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > Bug entered on behalf of Lachlan Hunt: > > I object to this document being on the Rec-track. These are > guidelines, and as such, they should be non-normative descriptions > referring to the normative requirements in the HTML specification > itself. If this document is to be published, it should instead be > on the Note-track. > > --- > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011May/0051.html As noted, there is no such distinction such as a note track and rec track based on whether a document contains normative requirements or not, it is appropriate to be considered a recommendation if there is an intention that the document is to be evolved over time, rather than written and then left to go stale. The alt spec is definitley a document that is written to provide current best practice and authoring requirements based on the realities of browser and assistive technology support for HTML features and as such will require updating on a regular basis and that is the intention. 49166 3 rubys 2011-06-03 17:36:23 +0000 Lachlan, as this has been RESOLVED WONTFIX, I encourage you to either: a) Mark this as TrackerIssue so that we can proceed to call for proposals. b) Voluntarily withdraw the corresponding Formal Objection. 53214 4 mike 2011-08-04 05:08:37 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 82579 5 rubys 2013-02-05 15:46:28 +0000 Reopening based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jan/0002.html . Steve: feel free to re-resolve if/when you feel the document is ready to proceed. 117598 6 shane 2015-01-29 19:38:25 +0000 This document is now Note Track.