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

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 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/90
(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 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removefigure
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