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: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:48:06 -0400
Message-ID: <4C07CEB6.4060002@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 06/03/2010 11:12 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

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



"4. Added complexity and ambiguity.

The figure element is confusing. As Shelley delineates in her Change
Proposals, the definitions of the aside and figure sound almost
identical, except that figure has a caption. They are not only
uncomfortably generic but also dangerously close in meaning, which
adds complexity and ambiguity. This is a symptom of a spec that
doesn't do its job. Bad complexity leads to frustration, wasted time
and wasted money."



"Added complexity and ambiguity is a valid argument.  Unfortunately, it
is not exactly a binary quality.  It is not like you can remove the
figure element and HTML5 will suddenly become simple.  The relevant
question is whether the additional complexity is merited.  Observing
whether or not this gets implemented and how users react to the
implementation is the best way to determine if that balance is right.

Net: there is only one potentially strong argument relevant at this time 
for removing the figure element, and that is the complexity argument. 
However, we find the objections to removing the element to be stronger 
-- at this point in time."

We are willing to reopen the discussion should there be new information 
presented[1].  I do not see the above as being new information.  If 
anyone here believes that their concerns are not being duly considered 
by the group, the W3C has a process[2] for that too.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGAppeals
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 15:48:41 UTC

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