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

Re: Request for group input on ISSUE-83 (figure and details captions)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:36:31 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001211036o3cdd58f9mdd3f21842fe8b7f8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
>>> Just to be clear, does this mean you're ruling out the other alternative of
>>> using <summary>, as mentioned in the change proposal, or is the choice
>>> between dlabel, dsummary and summary being left entirely to the editor's
>>> discretion?
>>
>> My understanding is that at this point, no Change Proposal has been
>> approved, so the issue is entirely up to the editor's discretion --
>> i.e., Maciej's suggestion is really a suggestion, not an official
>> request.  If Ian so chose, he could use summary, or even keep the
>> current dt/dd solution.  Then anyone who disagreed would have to
>> follow the decision procedure further.  So we'll have to wait to see
>> what Ian does, and the chairs can then post a Call for Consensus to
>> see if his decision makes everyone happy without need for further
>> procedure.
>>
>>
>
> That is not my understanding of the Decision Process. Ian made his
> decision already, which is why this was an issue and an associated
> change proposal(s).
>
> Maciej is attempting to determine consensus with one change proposal.
> There is one objection to one specific label being used (summary), but
> since there are other naming options, and no one is really expressing
> an interest in that name, not including this as a name option
> shouldn't block consensus. Of the remaining options, if we continue to
> have consensus with the approach used (two new elements), then yes,
> Ian could pick among the other, non-contested names.
>
> Isn't this a correct understanding, co-chairs?
>
> Shelley
>


I apologize for posting yet another email on procedural stuff, I know
it irritates folks, but I don't know where else we're supposed to have
these discussions, and I believe it is the responsibility of this
group to ensure that decisions impacting on the HTML5 specification
are consistent and representative.

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 18:37:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:00 GMT