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: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:11:25 -0400
Message-ID: <4C097A0D.2000703@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'Laura Carlson' <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 06/04/2010 05:10 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> John Foliot wrote:
>> 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.

You both use the word 'the' as if there was only one appropriate next 
step.  I disagree.

The decisions in question both conclude with:

> Meanwhile, we encourage people to write specific and actionable bug
> reports on areas where this element is deficient.

It should come as no surprise to anybody that I would prefer bug 
reports, assuming that they describe new information, over a Formal 
Objection.  In any case, I will note that these approaches are not 
mutually exclusive.

At this time, I will go further and suggest that *either* continued 
assertions of accessibility issues be dropped *or* such be documented in 
the form of bug reports.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 22:13:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:03 UTC