- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:13:14 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Let me be more specific: what exactly is the following objecting to? What > precisely is it advocating, and why? > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0360.html It's objecting to the change proposal to remove the idioms section, and advocating keeping it. While I don't exactly provide a bulleted list of objections, I was able to parse out 4 salient points from Shelley's change proposal, and I addressed each with a dedicated paragraph in the Positive and Negative Effects sections. Should I make it more explicit exactly what points each paragraph is countering? > The following is slightly better in that one can infer some weak objections, > but contains precious little rationale beyond the word "adequate" (which > gives the impression of faint praise?) and "to illustrate a *confusing* > table" (why is that important to include?): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0362.html I have provided additional reasoning in a reply; I haven't yet integrated it into a single page. It could do with some rewriting to make the point more direct. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 18:14:14 UTC