- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:23:09 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9901 --- Comment #1 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> 2010-06-14 00:23:09 --- 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. [*] An inherent Catch 22 kind of paradox exists in the current Commit Then Review (CTR) decision policy. This present an inequitable balance in shifting burden of proof in favor of "concrete features with normative text" [1] [2] ... A feature existing, meaning that it should exist. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0002.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0003.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 Monday, 14 June 2010 00:23:11 UTC