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

Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:10:22 -0500
Message-ID: <m2w643cc0271004061410y5204fe74u94f90f8dfa49a3e5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> The current status for these issues:
>
> - We have a Working Group draft that includes a number of new semantic
> elements and attributes.
> - We have Change Proposals submitted that propose removing some of these:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removefigure
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removeaside
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removedetails
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removehidden
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removeprogress
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removemeter
>
> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit alternate Change
> Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details), in case
> anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different change than the
> specific one in the existing Change Proposal.
>
> During discussion of these proposals, very similar arguments have been
> mustered for and against the submitted proposals. The Chairs believe that a
> single counter-proposal may be sufficient to address all six of these
> issues, and are willing to accept submissions along those lines. Separate
> counter- or alternate proposals will also be accepted.
>
> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by May 6th,
> 2010, we proceed with a Call for Consensus on Shelley's Change Proposals.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>

I do take exception to lumping the counters.

These elements are very different. Progress is not details is not the
same as the hidden attribute. Allowing one counter for all would be no
different than me providing one change proposal for all of the issues.
If that wasn't acceptable--and it wouldn't have been--than why is one
counter-proposal acceptable?

That they all arose at the same time should have no impact on how
they're handled. Each is unique. Each has its costs and benefits that
are different from the others.

>
>

I'm not going to formally object to this interesting segue in the
procedure, but I believe that anyone that writes one counter to all is
doing so with the assumption that the co-chairs and group have already
made a decision regardless of the strengths of the argument. This
assumption is more likely trigger me to file a Formal Objection if my
changes are rejected.

Decisions should be based on sound reasoning, and strong rationales,
not popularity. I think I remember someone saying that sometime in the
past.

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:10:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:16 UTC