- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Shelley Powers'" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Laura Carlson wrote: > The point of the chairs decision documents are to provide a decision. > They did that. Correct. > But the chairs didn't address or discuss points Shelley > raised in her change proposals. If the chairs could do that, it might > avoid a formal objection. I don't know. I don't think that at this point in the process that would be their responsibility. Their role is/was to ensure that W3C process was followed properly, which it was. The 'philosophical' decision to keep the element(s) mentioned in Issues 90 & 91 in HTML5 has been reached following W3C process. At this point, if a *member of the Working Group* feels that there are 'issues' with aspects of these elements, I would suspect that the appropriate next step would be to file one or more bug reports against that element. However, the fundamental decision or retaining or abandoning this element has been addressed, and the decision has been made, and so any such bug report should focus on 'remediation' rather than removal at this time (unless a clear technical argument that demonstrates 'harm' is brought forth). Chairs, is this correct? Finally, I would also suggest that arguments based upon current implementation versus non-implementation in one or more browser has little weight today: there are huge swaths of HTML5 that is or isn't supported in any given browser (geo-location, forms, local storage, land-mark elements, etc.) and if we were to strip HTML5 of elements and features simply because we do not have universal or even demonstrable support in browsers today is short-sighted IMHO - we are as much building for the future as we are for next week. JF
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 20:38:32 UTC