- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Shelley Powers'" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Laura Carlson wrote: > > Both Tab and Shelley worked hard on their documents. It might help to > provide more discussion in decisions on specific points raised in the > change proposals and counter proposals themselves. Point of clarification: the "Keep New Elements" Change Proposal (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements) was a jointly authored document, with contributions from Edward O'Connor, Tab Atkins, Jonas Sicking and myself. > The decisions documents did a good job of detailing rationale for most > of the survey comments. However, it might help if more discussion on > specific points raised in change proposals/counter proposals > themselves had been provided. Isn't that the point of this mailing list? To have discussions? Everyone concerned has had plenty of opportunity to air their points-of-view, to put forth their thoughts and opinions, and to advocate for their perspective. To my mind plenty of discussion has been had on this and the related "New Elements" topic, both on this list, on W3C conference calls/IRC and (in the case of the A11yTF) at the face-to-face meeting in Birmingham. Yes, there has been some dissent, but W3C consensus is not about unanimity, and the process the Chairs used was to evaluate and decide upon the least objectionable option. As Sam notes, with regard to this Issue, the A11y TF had a strong formal objection (again, not unanimous, but the general consensus of that Task Force) to retain these elements. That consensus position was in keeping with the long-standing request and position of the PFWG - points that are all clearly documented in the "Keep New Elements" Change Proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements#The_use_of_semantically_rich_elements_is_an_expressed_desire_of_the_W3C_Accessibility_.28WAI.29_communityhttp://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements#The_HTML_WG.27s_Accessibility_Task_Force_opposes_the_removal_of_these_elements.2C_attributes.2C_and_controlsAt what point does this continued 'discussion' become bike-shedding? Is thistruly the most important item we should be discussing right now? The pointshave been made, the discussion has been had, the decision has been reached.Can we get on with it already?JF
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 19:43:51 UTC