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

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

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Shelley Powers'" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009d01cb041e$2db18610$89149230$@edu>
Laura Carlson wrote:
>
> 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.

Point of clarification: the "Keep New Elements" Change Proposal 
(http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements) was a 
jointly authored document, with contributions from Edward O'Connor, Tab 
Atkins, Jonas Sicking and myself.

> 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.

Isn't that the point of this mailing list? To have discussions? Everyone 
concerned has had plenty of opportunity to air their points-of-view, to put 
forth their thoughts and opinions, and to advocate for their perspective. To 
my mind plenty of discussion has been had on this and the related "New 
Elements" topic, both on this list, on W3C conference calls/IRC and (in the 
case of the A11yTF) at the face-to-face meeting in Birmingham.

Yes, there has been some dissent, but W3C consensus is not about unanimity, 
and the process the Chairs used was to evaluate and decide upon the least 
objectionable option.  As Sam notes, with regard to this Issue, the A11y TF 
had a strong formal objection (again, not unanimous, but the general 
consensus of that Task Force) to retain these elements. That consensus 
position was in keeping with the long-standing request and position of the 
PFWG - points that are all clearly documented in the "Keep New Elements" 
Change Proposal:
 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements#The_use_of_semantically_rich_elements_is_an_expressed_desire_of_the_W3C_Accessibility_.28WAI.29_communityhttp://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements#The_HTML_WG.27s_Accessibility_Task_Force_opposes_the_removal_of_these_elements.2C_attributes.2C_and_controlsAt what point does this continued 'discussion' become bike-shedding? Is thistruly the most important item we should be discussing right now? The pointshave been made, the discussion has been had, the decision has been reached.Can we get on with it already?JF
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 19:43:50 UTC

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