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

John Foliot wrote:
> Laura Carlson wrote:
>
>   
>> The point of the chairs decision documents are to provide a decision.
>> They did that.
>>     
>
> Correct.
>
>
>   
>> But the chairs didn't address or discuss points Shelley
>> raised in her change proposals. If the chairs could do that, it might
>> avoid a formal objection. I don't know.
>>     
>
> I don't think that at this point in the process that would be their 
> responsibility. Their role is/was to ensure that W3C process was followed 
> properly, which it was.
>
> The 'philosophical' decision to keep the element(s) mentioned in Issues 90 & 
> 91 in HTML5 has been reached following W3C process. At this point, if a 
> *member of the Working Group* feels that there are 'issues' with aspects of 
> these elements, I would suspect that the appropriate next step would be to 
> file one or more bug reports against that element. However, the fundamental 
> decision or retaining or abandoning this element has been addressed, and the 
> decision has been made, and so any such bug report should focus on 
> 'remediation' rather than removal at this time (unless a clear technical 
> argument that demonstrates 'harm' is brought forth). Chairs, is this 
> correct?
>   
Sam covered the appropriate next step I can take if I believe that the 
co-chairs did not address the issues I brought up: a Formal Objection. 
Sure, others can file bugs. I hope they do, because neither figure nor 
aside, as defined in the HTML5 spec, is accessible. Then there's that 
whole confusion thing, since the two are almost identical. But that's 
for others to determine. Who knows, maybe you all can live with what you 
have.

I think Laura was trying to facilitate communication, perhaps hoping to 
avoid the filing of several FOs, which is not something any of us 
wanted. Let me know if I'm offbase on that one, Laura.

I appreciate her effort, but I believe that Sam has shut down the 
discussion, which is a co-chair prerogative. I'm waiting resolution on 
several change proposals before I determine my next steps.
> Finally, I would also suggest that arguments based upon current 
> implementation versus non-implementation in one or more browser has little 
> weight today: there are huge swaths of HTML5 that is or isn't supported in 
> any given browser (geo-location, forms, local storage, land-mark elements, 
> etc.) and if we were to strip HTML5 of elements and features simply because 
> we do not have universal or even demonstrable support in browsers today is 
> short-sighted IMHO - we are as much building for the future as we are for 
> next week.
>
> JF
>
>   
This wasn't one of my objections. I believe it is one of Laura's.

Shelley

Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 21:11:05 UTC