W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2010

[Bug 9901] co-chairs should also address objections raised in change proposals

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:42:12 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OUJ5o-0003cB-5k@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #2 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>  2010-07-01 12:42:11 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> In the case of <figure> and <aside>, the decisions documents said, "The counter
> proposal provides rationale for the feature."  Elaborating on how that
> rationale trumps the points Shelley raised in her Change Proposal would have
> been beneficial. For instance fundamental questions presented like:
> * Reason for existence of the feature/why a special purpose element is judged
> to be required.[*]
> * Is the feature judged by the chairs to be semantically meaningful or not? 
> * Is it structurally useful or not?
> * Are the costs to HTML editors, Content Management Systems, and other tools
> justified?
> * etc.
> The decisions documents did a good job of detailing rationale for most of the
> survey comments. However, it may have helped people understand the decision and
> facilitated acceptance if specific rationale points which were raised in the
> change proposals/counter proposals themselves had been addressed.

The <details> decision [1] announce June 30, 2010 [2] did a fine job addressing
change proposal rationale as well as survey comments. Big improvement. 

Thank you very much.

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0659.html

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 12:42:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:51 UTC