Re: ISSUE-92 cleanuptable - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

At this time, the chairs are formally requesting that you update your 
change proposal.  Please complete this within the next week.

- Sam Ruby

On 05/21/2010 01:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Sam Ruby<>  wrote:
>> At least one person was confused, or at least that is your assertion.
>> Several possibilities exist.  I'll state the most unlikely first. Perhaps
>> you believe that it is a good thing that specs promote confusion.
> It gives book authors a bigger market!
>>   Alternately, perhaps you believe that nobody else will be confused.  More
>> realistically, perhaps you believe that merely relocating this text will
>> address the confusion?  If so, state so.  Or is it that something additional
>> is required, perhaps just a paragraph or even a sentence or even a few words
>> that provides additional context to this paragraph?
> The former.  I think that the spec adequately explains the purpose of
> the section already, with the text starting with "For tables that
> consist of more..." and ending just before "There are a variety of
> ways...".  However, I am sympathetic to the argument that this section
> is still slightly confusing with its current placement, as it is easy
> to skip past that text and just look directly at the examples,
> believing them to be examples of good table markup.  This is the
> general pattern followed by most markup examples in the spec, after
> all.  I think that moving the section will reduce the possibility of
> confusion due to this.
> In the course of moving it to a new section, it is likely to need a
> sentence or two of reiterating explanation introducing it, in case
> people come to it directly rather than through following the link in
> the<table>  element section.  I didn't state this explicitly in my CP,
> but it's pretty trivial and doesn't add anything relevant to the case
> I was presenting.
>> Note: I am not trying to argue the case, I am trying to coach.  I believe
>> that this change proposal focuses too narrowly on stating what is wrong with
>> the original proposal.  It would make a stronger case if it balanced that
>> with more of a rationale as to why the existing prose is useful.
> Sure; don't worry, I understand your intention.  ^_^
> ~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 17:03:43 UTC