- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:48:06 -0400
- 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. From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/att-0029/figure.txt "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." From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0002.html "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