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 03:56:08 +0200
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100602035608473213.ce09aa9e@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Shelley Powers, Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:32:02 -0500:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 06/01/2010 08:03 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> On 06/01/2010 06:45 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

>> What you said was:
>>   "There's a good reason for specialized figure handling in the print
>>   world, but not for web pages. Because we don't have a good understanding
>>   of why we have figure, we can't determine what it should contain. We
>>   only have to look at the discussions about what should be allowed within
>>   the figure element to discover that no one really has a clear idea of
>>   what this element is for, or how it will be used. Well, other than
>>   something with an optional caption, that is tangentially related to the
>>   content of the page (as if "tangentially" has a great deal of meaning in
>>   a web context, considering that anything can be tangentially related to
>>   anything else with the simple addition of a link)."
>> To me that is not clearly an objection.  Rather I see that as a 
>> valid reason to request that a rationale be provided for the figure 
>> element, and as such we solicited a counter proposal.  And a the 
>> counter proposal produced provided rationale.
> Then you and I have to disagree. I was providing an argument for 
> removing the element,

During this debate, something/someone linked to 
(ah, it was Sam in his resolution letter
http://www.w3.org/mid/4C058372.4020307@intertwingly.net )
which has the title "Tighten the focus and allowable content in the 
figure element".

While in your blog, you point to 
which has the title "remove figure element"

Much of what I said here was related to the first variant. Sorry. Thus 
it seems we have had a correct poll anyhow.
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 01:56:42 UTC

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