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 16:30:59 -0500
Message-ID: <z2n643cc0271004061430v73b95732k71504f2007db78cd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 04/06/2010 05:10 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> 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.
> Issues 1 and 2 were decided together.

Same counter-proposal? There's been so many lately, I can't remember
what was what.

Never mind, I just wasn't aware that we did have a precedent in this regard.

> For these issues (new semantic elements/attributes).  The chairs have not
> made a decision.
>> Decisions should be based on sound reasoning, and strong rationales,
>> not popularity. I think I remember someone saying that sometime in the
>> past.
> When a decision is made, it will be based on sound reasoning and strong
> rationales, not based on the number of separate emails.
> Decisions will not be based on popularity.

That is very good to know. Thank you.

I no longer have any concerns about the number or make up of the

>> Shelley
> - Sam Ruby


Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:31:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC