- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:13:26 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
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 directions. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 18:14:00 UTC