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

Re: Change proposals and objections: (was: Working Group Decision)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:13:14 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimE5k9hOgEDFR5hAoQgETH_YGnorObdkffHU6nt@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Let me be more specific: what exactly is the following objecting to? What
> precisely is it advocating, and why?
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0360.html

It's objecting to the change proposal to remove the idioms section,
and advocating keeping it.  While I don't exactly provide a bulleted
list of objections, I was able to parse out 4 salient points from
Shelley's change proposal, and I addressed each with a dedicated
paragraph in the Positive and Negative Effects sections.  Should I
make it more explicit exactly what points each paragraph is
countering?


> The following is slightly better in that one can infer some weak objections,
> but contains precious little rationale beyond the word "adequate" (which
> gives the impression of faint praise?) and "to illustrate a *confusing*
> table" (why is that important to include?):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0362.html

I have provided additional reasoning in a reply; I haven't yet
integrated it into a single page.  It could do with some rewriting to
make the point more direct.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 18:14:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:09 GMT