- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:05:18 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Sam, Both Tab and Shelley worked hard on their documents. It might help to provide more discussion in decisions on specific points raised in the change proposals and counter proposals themselves. In this case, the decisions mentioned implementers and developers. The decisions said, "The counter proposal provides rationale for the feature." Elaborating on how that trumps the points Shelley raised in her Change Proposal might be beneficial. For instance fundamental questions presented like: * Reason for existence of the feature/why a special purpose element is judged to be required. * Is the feature judged by the chairs to be semantically meaningful or not? * Is it structurally useful or not? * Are the costs to HTML editors, Content Management Systems, and other tools justified? * etc. The decisions documents did a good job of detailing rationale for most of the survey comments. However, it might help if more discussion on specific points raised in change proposals/counter proposals themselves had been provided. Also please consider explaining why the Commit Then Review (CTR) process presents an inequitable balance in shifting burden of proof in favor of "concrete features with normative text". A feature existing, meaning that it should exist, could be viewed as a Catch 22 kind of paradox in CTR and the current decision policy. Thanks. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 19:05:50 UTC