W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2010

Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4BF3F608.8070809@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 13.05.2010 00:01, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> The poll is available here, and will run starting today, and run through Wednesday, May 19th.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-90-objection-poll/
>
> Please read the introductory text before entering your response.
>
> In particular, keep in mind that you don't *have* to reply. You only need to do so if you feel your objection to one of the options is truly strong, and has not been adequately addressed by a Change Proposal or someone else's objection. The Chairs will be looking at strength of objections, and will not be counting votes.
> ...

So I looked at the spec, the change proposals, and the objections.

At this point, I don't have strong objections to both proposals. On the 
other hand, it's obvious that there is a lot of controversy about the 
details of the current element definition, and should we decide to keep 
the element, further work seems to be required.

I'd also like to note that some of the objections to Shelley's proposal 
do not seem to be relevant; for instance, whether or not the 
"superfriends" support an element isn't very interesting to me, unless 
they care to come over and argue within the WG.

I also was confused about Gregory's statement about Shelley saying that 
MathML was a graphical markup language. She didn't say that, as far I 
can tell; all she said that it was a language that could be used to 
express something that can go into a <figure> element.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 14:37:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:02 UTC