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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 10:12:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4C07C672.3060004@burningbird.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 06/03/2010 10:47 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> You can't inconsistently pick and choose among the design principles:
>> applying one, ignoring another. To do so implies that the decision was
>> based less on the strengths of arguments provided, and more on whatever
>> is most expedient.
> A reference to the "do not reinvent the wheel" principle would not 
> have been materially responsive to the assertion that "the existing 
> elements do not have a transition plan".
Your response is hand waving: look at my left hand, because I don't have 
an answer in my right.

You reference a design principle. All design principles, we assume, are 
equally important. You can't reference one design principle as support 
for your decision, while disregarding others. You disregarded others, 
therefore your decision is that much weaker, that much more difficult to 
> A single documented incompatibility would have the potential to be a 
> strong objection.  I encourage any and all such incompatibilities to 
> be documented via bug reports: http://tinyurl.com/2vvv8vz

And a single instance of showing that we already have existing 
technology that provides the exact same functionality as 
figure/figcaption should also have been considered a strong objection to 
the creation of two new elements. Two elements, may I had, that do not 
provide the same accessibility functionality as the frugal alternative I 

You did not address my objection in your decision, Sam. You completely 
and totally ignored it.

> - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 15:13:28 UTC

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