W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@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 18:43:20 +0200
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 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: <20100607184320203202.27143518@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:38:59 -0400:
> On 06/07/2010 12:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Leif Halvard Silli  wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.  It seems redundant to add that into every Change
>> Proposal written from now on, but I can make sure that it is a part of
>> any proposals I author from now on if necessary.
> Not necessary.

I'm going to assume that this was a comment to Tab.
>> ~TJ
> - Sam Ruby
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 16:43:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:40 UTC