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

Re: Alternate proposals for ISSUE-83

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:03:19 -0800
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <F2B4026D-05EA-499F-B64E-0AF0C3BAE654@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>

On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
> wrote:
>> I have recorded the three alternate proposals for ISSUE-83 on the  
>> issue
>> status page. We're not facing a timeout now, but I left the  
>> deadline of
>> January 16th on the page in case any additional Change Proposals  
>> for this
>> issue are submitted.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>
>>
>>
>
> As happened with the Microdata change proposal, should I then respond
> to the alternative and counter proposals?

You should feel free to update your original Change Proposal at any  
time to respond to new arguments.

In terms of formal process, here's what I expect is going to happen:

1) Most likely, no one will write a "zero edits" Counter-Proposal by  
the deadline.
2) At that point, we'll essentially be decided to get rid of <dt>/<dd>  
for <figure> and <details>, but with multiple options for what  
replaces them.
3) My hope is that in follow-up discussion we can pare down the  
options. My hope is that we'll find a single option which is most  
preferred by the Working Group, and agree that we can get behind it  
without having a formal bakeoff.
4) If we do get down to a single preferred option, I think there are  
reasonable odds that the editor will just adopt it, leading to an  
amicable resolution, and sparing us the work of a formal Working Group  
decision.

If things do indeed go down that way, then we may not need to do a  
formal round of revisions to the Change Proposals. On the other hand,  
if even after discussion there are multiple proposals with serious  
backing, then we may have to use a straw poll or similar mechanism to  
make the call. Incidentally, since I wrote one of the proposals and  
contributed to others, I am hoping the other two co-Chairs can do the  
adjudicating if we need to decide among multiple options even after  
discussion.


Incidentally, now is a fine time to start discussing the possible  
replacements for dt/dd. Right now on the table we have:

A) Use <fltcap> as the caption for both <details> and <figure>. No  
special body elements. [Submitted by Shelley Powers]
B) Use a caption="" attribute on any element as the caption for  
<figure>, with no special body element. No change for <details>.  
[Submitted by Tab Atkins]
C) Use <fcaption> as the caption for <figure> and <dlabel> as the  
caption for <details>. No special body elements. [Submitted by Maciej  
Stachowiak]
D) Use <fcaption> as the caption for <figure> and <dlabel> as the  
caption for <details>. Use optional <fbody> and <dbody> respectively  
for their bodies. [Submitted by Tab Atkins]

We may get more proposals by the deadline, but it would be totally  
fine to start discussing the submitted ones now. If anyone (including  
and perhaps especially the various Change Proposal authors) has an  
opinion on which of these replacement solutions they like best, and  
which they strongly dislike, that would be valuable input.


Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 19:03:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT