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

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:41:39 -0500
Message-ID: <4C05B6D3.3090101@burningbird.net>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Shelley Powers, Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:03:45 -0500:
>   
>> That's what I tried to demonstrate in my change proposal. Which, from 
>> your recent decision, was completely ignored, since you only 
>> addressed the objections to the counter-proposal, not the change 
>> proposal itself. Unless you think Henri's one line was sufficient to 
>> disregard what I wrote.
>>     
>
> The subject of this thread is ISSUE-91 (aside), however, your comments 
> in this thread are as much about ISSUE-90 (figure). Thus I will comment 
> on ISSUE-90. 
>
> The objection and counter-objections expressed in the poll were related 
> to the *question* of the poll, which was phrased as the dilemma about 
> whether to "remove the figure Element" or not. And it was interpreted 
> as if you and your proposal suggested to remove the figure element. 
>
> When I now reread your proposal for ISSUE-90, then I (re)discovered 
> that only in a tail at the end of the proposal, did you suggest to 
> remove <figure> entirely. 
>
> As such, I must say that my own comments in the poll, which all of them 
> related to how <figure> needed to be improved, are more closely linked 
> to your original proposal than they are to the dilemma that the poll 
> presented us with. (So, if the chairs has found reason to give weight 
> to my comments, then there is no reason to complain, given the original 
> proposal.) ;-)
>
> Thus, if there is a problem with the chair's conclusions, then it must 
> be caused by the poll itself more than lack of attention to the 
> original proposal. 
>
> One could say that this deviation from your original proposal, which  
> may have caused us to have a straw man poll instead of a real poll (?), 
> probably would not have occurred so easily if your different proposal 
> hadn't been dealt with under the same umbrella. (How ironic, that the 
> chairs have been unable to conclude under a single umbrella themselves 
> ... )
>
> However, it is also a little disappointing that you yourself haven't 
> commented about he unclear relation between the poll and your proposal 
> until now - it probably made many of us think that you though the poll 
> captured - if not your written text, then at least the essence of your 
> thoughts. But anyhow, the poll is not to misunderstand - to remove or 
> not to remove was the clear question. 
>
> It would have helped if your proposal did not contain that tail at the 
> end which opened up for the interpretation that removal of <figure> was 
> your ultimate goal. A proposal to remove <figure> should have been in a 
> separate ISSUE, to minimize the risk for confusion.
>   

When I was writing the change proposals, and decided to focus on 
removing the elements, I asked the co-chairs if this was acceptable. At 
that time, I was willing to close down the one issue/bug and start it 
again, but we went ahead.

My change proposals included this information so that people could 
follow what happened: originally I believed the elements needed tighter 
definition, but after research and additional thought, I believed they 
needed to be removed.

I could not respond on the survey questions because I was not a member 
of the group, and had lost edit and response privileges. I couldn't even 
correct any errors in the change proposals, including some formatting 
errors, which may have led to more confusion.

However, I did hope that people would read through the entire proposal 
before responding in the survey.

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 01:42:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC