- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:42:12 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9901 --- Comment #2 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> 2010-07-01 12:42:11 --- (In reply to comment #1) > In the case of <figure> and <aside>, the decisions documents said, "The counter > proposal provides rationale for the feature." Elaborating on how that > rationale trumps the points Shelley raised in her Change Proposal would have > been beneficial. For instance fundamental questions presented like: > > * Reason for existence of the feature/why a special purpose element is judged > to be required.[*] > * Is the feature judged by the chairs to be semantically meaningful or not? > * Is it structurally useful or not? > * Are the costs to HTML editors, Content Management Systems, and other tools > justified? > * etc. > > The decisions documents did a good job of detailing rationale for most of the > survey comments. However, it may have helped people understand the decision and > facilitated acceptance if specific rationale points which were raised in the > change proposals/counter proposals themselves had been addressed. The <details> decision [1] announce June 30, 2010 [2] did a fine job addressing change proposal rationale as well as survey comments. Big improvement. Thank you very much. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/att-0659/issue-93-decision.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0659.html -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 12:42:15 UTC