Re: ISSUE-66 image-analysis: informal consensus check

On 04/30/2010 05:06 AM, James Graham wrote:
> On 04/30/2010 08:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:16:37 +0900, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> <> wrote:
>>> Sigh. I support the no-change proposal.
>> That or more detail works for me. I don't really think the current text
>> gives the impression this is a viable alternative for the alt attribute.
> Agreed. I believe the current text is very clear and useful.

Just a passing observation: if there isn't consensus, the next step is 
to look for which proposals have would attract the weakest objections. 
Knowledge of which proposals each of you might support is no where near 
as useful as knowing which proposals you would actively object to, which 
in turn is no where near as useful as knowing the basis for such objections.

An occasional +1 here or there is fine, but seeing three such inputs is 
what caused me to send this note.  I encourage each of you (and all of 
the members of the working group for that matter) to identify which 
proposals you see as actively harmful (and to say why) and/or to focus 
on suggestions in the form of concrete changes to existing proposals 
which would result in something you would no longer object to.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 11:28:05 UTC