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

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

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:05:18 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinC0DL7Gd1FGgLqhm_YKCCYvCYB1zoKRt8Gc30C@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Sam,

Both Tab and Shelley worked hard on their documents. It might help to
provide more discussion in decisions on specific points raised in the
change proposals and counter proposals themselves.

In this case, the decisions mentioned implementers and developers. The
decisions said, "The counter proposal provides rationale for the
feature."  Elaborating on how that trumps the points Shelley raised in
her Change Proposal might be beneficial. For instance fundamental
questions presented like:

* Reason for existence of the feature/why a special purpose element is
judged to be required.
* Is the feature judged by the chairs to be semantically meaningful or not?
* Is it structurally useful or not?
* Are the costs to HTML editors, Content Management Systems, and other
tools justified?
* etc.

The decisions documents did a good job of detailing rationale for most
of the survey comments. However, it might help if more discussion on
specific points raised in change proposals/counter proposals
themselves had been provided.

Also please consider explaining why the Commit Then Review (CTR)
process presents an inequitable balance in shifting burden of proof in
favor of "concrete features with normative text". A feature existing,
meaning that it should exist, could be viewed as a Catch 22 kind of
paradox in CTR and the current decision policy.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Laura
--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 19:05:50 GMT

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