W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > June 2010

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

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: "'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: <010a01cb0660$d6f81240$84e836c0$@edu>
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.


I believe that all aspects of the Draft Specification are open to discussion 
right up until Candidate Recommendation, although by that time we should be 
pretty clear on all issues, questions, etc. But (for example) Last Call can 
and often does introduce questions, issues, etc. that may warrant further 
discussion (if history and my experience with the WCAG 2 document was an 
indication). I'm not saying that this is a desired course of action, but the 
W3C process does allow for this:
	"Ideally, after a Last Call announcement, a Working Group receives only 
indications of support for the document, with no proposals for substantive 
change. In practice, Last Call announcements generate comments that 
sometimes result in substantive changes to a document. A Working Group 
SHOULD NOT assume that it has finished its work by virtue of issuing a Last 
Call announcement."


Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 16:46:44 UTC

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