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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:24:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4C06F646.1080706@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 06/02/2010 06:03 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> I'm not speaking for Larry, but I read the phrase "I'm not *strongly*
> opposed..." to be about the concept of this type of element, not the
> specific element.
> In other words, my read is he's not adverse to this type of element
> being in the spec, BUT if what we have in the spec now is controversial,
> or will inhibit interoperability, then remove it should be removed. Not
> to do so could impede progress on the spec, if not now, then later.

Let's break that down.  Note: this is an analysis of your interpretation 
of Larry's words, not Larry's words itself.

The following would be adequate basis for strong objections:

1) inclusion of elements which are not only controversial, but for which 
the inclusion is more controversial than the removal of said elements.

2) inclusion of elements with known and identified interoperability issues.

3) inclusion of elements which we now know with certainly will need to 
be removed later and furthermore would be significantly more costly to 
remove later than now.

Neither Larry's words, nor your interpretation of Larry's words indicate 
any of the above.  Instead, they are non-strong forms of these 
statements.  And the strength of these objections need to be considered 
in the context of the evident presence of strong objections to the 
removal of these elements.

> He then provided additional rationale for his objection: the existing
> elements do not have a transition plan, nor is there any discussion
> about fallback, for browsers that don't support HTML5.

There is a transition plan that applies to all work here:


If there are known issues, then they need to be identified with 
precision, in the form of bug reports.

> He, like so many of us, didn't know that we were supposed to include the
> words, "I strongly object..." to the proposal we didn't agree with. That
> this phrase is the key to the decision process.

Nobody said that those words needed to be included.  To the contrary, a 
number of strong objections were identified from the prose provided by a 
number of individuals.

> We missed the memo.

The relevant memo:


> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 00:25:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:02 UTC