- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:41:39 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > 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. > When I was writing the change proposals, and decided to focus on removing the elements, I asked the co-chairs if this was acceptable. At that time, I was willing to close down the one issue/bug and start it again, but we went ahead. My change proposals included this information so that people could follow what happened: originally I believed the elements needed tighter definition, but after research and additional thought, I believed they needed to be removed. I could not respond on the survey questions because I was not a member of the group, and had lost edit and response privileges. I couldn't even correct any errors in the change proposals, including some formatting errors, which may have led to more confusion. However, I did hope that people would read through the entire proposal before responding in the survey. Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 01:42:17 UTC