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

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

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 18:56:14 +0200
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, 'Leif Halvard Silli' <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, 'Laura Carlson' <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, 'Shelley Powers' <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100607185614903921.9b780daf@xn--mlform-iua.no>
John Foliot, Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:45:33 -0700 (PDT):
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 
>> I wasn't aware that there was any particular need to assert that this
>> portion of the spec would continue to be edited like every other
>> portion of the spec.
> 
> +1

-1

  [ Snip ]

You are debating against a straw man. I did not say that anything was 
"necessary" according to process. I suggested a way through which you 
could have gained more support for your change proposal:

]]
>>> The need to continue to discus<figure>,<details>  etc was not
expressed in the counter-proposal. If it had been expressed there, then
not only would it have lowered the ad-hominen smack of the whole
counter-proposal effort, it could also have lead to more support for it.
[[

-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 16:56:49 GMT

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