Re: Next issues to move forward on

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>
> The Chairs would like to move more issues forward in the process. Here are
> the ones we are currently concentrating on:
>
> ISSUE-27 rel-ownership
>    - Two concerns were raised about this proposal (registry licensing and
> advisement to use a Web-based development process), but Mark Nottingham
> seems to have addressed both. We'd like to ask Tantek and Henri to verify
> whether their concerns are sufficiently addressed.
>    - If existing concerns are addressed, and no new objections come up, we
> will assume there is no need to call for counter-proposals. Instead we will
> seek amicable resolution (if Ian is willing to just go ahead and make the
> change), or issue a Call for Consensus on the submitted Change Proposal.
>
> ISSUE-66 image-analysis
>    - From discussion, it seems like there is a good possibility that we can
> come to a compromise agreement and settle by amicable resolution. That would
> be the preferred outcome. We're looking to Ian to propose some text that
> could be generally agreeable based on the discussion.
>    - If we don't come to amicable resolution, then we will likely call for
> counter-proposals / alternate proposals, since there was at least some
> disagreement voiced with the original proposal as written.
>
> IMAGE-83 dt-dd-semantics
>    - We seem to have near-total agreement on an amicable resolution to this
> issue, with one sticking point. Namely, Shelley objects to using <summary>
> as the element that holds the caption/label/summary of <details>, while Ian
> would prefer to use that to his second choice, <dsummary>. We will ask one
> last time if either is willing to live with their less preferred option, and
> if so try to settle this by amicable resolution.
>    -  If neither is willing to back down, then I will make a final
> adjustment to my Change Proposal and ask the other two Chairs to take the
> next action. It is likely they would call for consensus on it at that point.
>


I can't continue with this discussion, as I'm under a book deadline and I
have to focus on my work. However, I am concerned that my concerns will not
be addressed, if only your change proposal is submitted for a poll. Your
proposal does not include my concerns, and in fact, we're not referencing
the same proposals any longer.

All of the original proposals are moot because the major change, the removal
of dt/dd, and the use of figcaption for figure are without objection. The
focus now is on the name for the details new label element.
.
Instead of your entire proposal, I would suggest the one poll item include
the objections I wrote up earlier, in support of using dsummary, and
whatever Ian wants to provide for his wanting to use summary. Then my
concerns would be addressed in the poll.

And can we, please, resolve whether this will have to go to a poll today?


>
> Any help in getting these three issues settled is much appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>
Shelley