Re: Request for group input on ISSUE-83 (figure and details captions)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Aryeh Gregor <> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Lachlan Hunt <> wrote:
>> Just to be clear, does this mean you're ruling out the other alternative of
>> using <summary>, as mentioned in the change proposal, or is the choice
>> between dlabel, dsummary and summary being left entirely to the editor's
>> discretion?
> My understanding is that at this point, no Change Proposal has been
> approved, so the issue is entirely up to the editor's discretion --
> i.e., Maciej's suggestion is really a suggestion, not an official
> request.  If Ian so chose, he could use summary, or even keep the
> current dt/dd solution.  Then anyone who disagreed would have to
> follow the decision procedure further.  So we'll have to wait to see
> what Ian does, and the chairs can then post a Call for Consensus to
> see if his decision makes everyone happy without need for further
> procedure.

That is not my understanding of the Decision Process. Ian made his
decision already, which is why this was an issue and an associated
change proposal(s).

Maciej is attempting to determine consensus with one change proposal.
There is one objection to one specific label being used (summary), but
since there are other naming options, and no one is really expressing
an interest in that name, not including this as a name option
shouldn't block consensus. Of the remaining options, if we continue to
have consensus with the approach used (two new elements), then yes,
Ian could pick among the other, non-contested names.

Isn't this a correct understanding, co-chairs?



Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 18:32:23 UTC