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

Re: sections removed, current and ongoing

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:13:26 -0800
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <01E21066-9A4A-4AF8-B88E-ACCCC39FBC21@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Jan 9, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>>> Major issues, such as those requesting the removal of sections,  
>>>> should
>>>> start their discussions here on the list, which will allow us to  
>>>> get a
>>>> better understanding of how the rest of the group feels about the
>>>> issue. (People should be able to use reasonable judgement and  
>>>> common
>>>> sense to determine whether their issue is major or minor, but if in
>>>> doubt, mailing this list first shouldn't hurt.)
>>> Can you cite a major bug that wasn't discussed first on the list?
>> Yes. The ones from Shelley that this issue is about regarding the  
>> removal of various sections, like <details>,
> Seriously?  You are asserting that the removal of the <details> from  
> HTML was not discussed on this list?  That's quickly disproven:
>  http://tinyurl.com/yes9qea
> Following those links quickly leads you to:
>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/83
>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/152
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8379
> And even to:
>  http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/DdDt

I don't recall if the specific idea of removing <details> was  
meaningfully discussed on the list or not. But the main thrust of the  
issue and Shelley's change proposal was to stop using <dd> and <dt>  
for the internal structure of <details> or <figure>, not to remove  
<details>. In response to James's email that it seemed to suggest an  
alternate idea of removing <figure> and <details>, Shelley said that  
was not the intent of this particular Change Proposal, and updated it  
to make that clear.

Thus, out of the resources you linked, I think the only one with  
directly relevant discussion is the bug.

I do think this issue could have had more visibility before turning  
into spec changes. But I note that it's everyone's responsibility to  
exercise good judgment about what needs more discussion, not just bug  
filers. Besides Shelley, other people who potentially could have  
fostered more discussion of this topic include Ian (before resolving  
the bug, for instance) and myself (since I remember noticing the bug  
but did not comment or start an email thread). Since I am a co-chair  
and it's my job to know better, I place the greatest responsibility on  
myself. And I think Shelley was sincerely doing her best to follow  

Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 18:14:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC