- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:03:24 -0400
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Original issue: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/91 Poll results (including links to change proposals): http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-91-objection-poll/results First, dispensing with a few preliminaries. We are talking about a concrete feature with normative text -- this is not an editorial issue. It has been specified. The counter proposal provides rationale for the feature. Implementers have indicated that they are planning on implementing it. Developers have indicated that they plan on using it. A quick scan indicates that this element is being greeted warmly: http://www.google.com/search?q=html5+aside Members of the working group have objected to its removal. While none of this makes it a fait accompli, it does affect the burden of proof. In particular, it indicates that Henri's "I object to making the WG fail to deliver to Web authors by removing the element, because I think this author needs deserves to be addressed" is, in fact, a strong argument. So, turning to the objections to the counter-proposal... Dean suggests standard for new elements, namely that they be "essential", and indicates that he doesn't meet this bar. This standard is not one that has been adopted by the working group, nor is it clear how to apply such a standard. Dean himself indicates that he sees a greater need for navigational elements, just not this one. Larry indicated that his input was not a strong objection. Laura categorized 4 objections, and did so very well, and we thank her for that. Lack of accessibility is a potential work item. There are people who focus on such aspects. The fact that nobody who does so considers this a priority is an indication that this is not a strong objection. That being said, should accessibility related bug reports surface, they will be treated seriously. Lack of implementations will affect the ability of this specification to proceed to REC, but will not affect the ability of this spec to proceed to LC. Lack of use (be it for styling reasons or any other reason) could conceivably be an issue... down the road. This is something that should be watched for as the spec proceeds. At the present time, there isn't widespread evidence that this feature will NOT be used. To the contrary, this feature appears to be well received. Added complexity and ambiguity is a valid argument. Unfortunately, it is not exactly a binary quality. It is not like you can remove the aside element and HTML5 will suddenly become simple. The relevant question is whether the additional complexity is merited. Observing whether or not this gets implemented and how users react to the implementation is the best way to determine if that balance is right. Net: there is only one potentially strong argument relevant at this time for removing the aside element, and that is the complexity argument. Dean's argument is related to this argument. However, we find the objections to removing the element to be stronger -- at this point in time. That could easily change down the road. In fact, unless there are implementations forthcoming, that WILL change. Meanwhile, we encourage people to write specific and actionable bug reports on areas where this element is deficient. - Sam Ruby, on behalf of all three HTML WG co-chairs.
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 22:03:54 UTC