W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element

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
Message-ID: <20100602033439638728.5575d3eb@xn--mlform-iua.no>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:19 UTC