- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 03:34:39 +0200
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Shelley Powers, Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:03:45 -0500: > That's what I tried to demonstrate in my change proposal. Which, from > your recent decision, was completely ignored, since you only > addressed the objections to the counter-proposal, not the change > proposal itself. Unless you think Henri's one line was sufficient to > disregard what I wrote. The subject of this thread is ISSUE-91 (aside), however, your comments in this thread are as much about ISSUE-90 (figure). Thus I will comment on ISSUE-90. The objection and counter-objections expressed in the poll were related to the *question* of the poll, which was phrased as the dilemma about whether to "remove the figure Element" or not. And it was interpreted as if you and your proposal suggested to remove the figure element. When I now reread your proposal for ISSUE-90, then I (re)discovered that only in a tail at the end of the proposal, did you suggest to remove <figure> entirely. As such, I must say that my own comments in the poll, which all of them related to how <figure> needed to be improved, are more closely linked to your original proposal than they are to the dilemma that the poll presented us with. (So, if the chairs has found reason to give weight to my comments, then there is no reason to complain, given the original proposal.) ;-) Thus, if there is a problem with the chair's conclusions, then it must be caused by the poll itself more than lack of attention to the original proposal. One could say that this deviation from your original proposal, which may have caused us to have a straw man poll instead of a real poll (?), probably would not have occurred so easily if your different proposal hadn't been dealt with under the same umbrella. (How ironic, that the chairs have been unable to conclude under a single umbrella themselves ... ) However, it is also a little disappointing that you yourself haven't commented about he unclear relation between the poll and your proposal until now - it probably made many of us think that you though the poll captured - if not your written text, then at least the essence of your thoughts. But anyhow, the poll is not to misunderstand - to remove or not to remove was the clear question. It would have helped if your proposal did not contain that tail at the end which opened up for the interpretation that removal of <figure> was your ultimate goal. A proposal to remove <figure> should have been in a separate ISSUE, to minimize the risk for confusion. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 01:35:15 UTC