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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:05:27 -0500
Message-ID: <4B58A577.1000308@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers 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.

The Decision process has a pretty picture of this:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/basic-process.png

We've been through steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and are now at 5.d.  Aryeh, my 
reading of that diagram does not match your understanding.  I see the 
next step as being 6.  Do you read it differently?

> 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?

If a decision is made to overrule the editor's response (step 7.b), I 
believe that it would be best for all concerned if the Decision 
contained enough of a description so as to prevent needless loops of 
1,2,4,5.d,6,7,10, 1,2,4,5.d,6,7,10, 1,2,4,5.d,6,7,10, ...

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 19:05:59 GMT

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