W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2010

[wbs] response to 'ISSUE-90: Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections'

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of LMM@acm.org <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 20:40:01 +0000
To: LMM@acm.org,www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-0ce70b35a48d1984afd3fd97e71cf1e2@cgi.w3.org>

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'ISSUE-90:
Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections' (HTML Working
Group) for Larry Masinter.



---------------------------------
Objections to the Change Proposal to Remove the figure Element
----
We have a Change Proposal to remove the figure element. If you have strong
objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections
below.  Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite
someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately
addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Objections: 





---------------------------------
Objections to the Change Proposal to Keep New Elements and Attributes
----
We have a Change Proposal to keep several newly-introduced semantic
elements, attributes, and controls. If you have strong objections to
adopting this Change Proposal specifically with respect to the figure
element, please state your objections below.  Keep in mind, you must
actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that
your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then
it is not necessary to repeat it.
Objections: 
I'm not *strongly* opposed to the concepts that these semantic elements,
attributes and controls add, but I do think that, in order to actually
reach a W3C standard quickly, controversial additions that are likely to
slow down progress or result in poor interoperability should be removed
from the specification so that the W3C HTML working group can reach closure
quickly.

One thing that concerns me about many of these is that the transition plan
is unclear to me: how can authors can introduce these new features and
still be compatible with older browsers? Without a clear, acceptable
transition plan, the risk is to fragment the web, and to encourage authors
to create "best viewed by HTML5" web sites, in a repeat of Browser Wars
1.0.  The current specification does not address the transition and
fallback issues, and for that reason alone, these elements should be
removed until those details can be worked out and reviewed fully.




These answers were last modified on 13 May 2010 at 20:37:56 U.T.C.
by Larry Masinter

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-90-objection-poll/ until
2010-05-19.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 20:40:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:30 GMT