W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2012

Chair review of the issue-200 legend-placement change proposals

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:10:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4F8D5D99.70804@intertwingly.net>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
CC: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, "Edward O'Connor (ted@oconnor.cx)" <ted@oconnor.cx>

Change Proposals:

    * Allow: http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Mtanalin/legend-placement
    * Keep: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-200

The Allow proposal has sufficient rationale, but the details section is
deficient in that it proposes multiple options and does not propose them 
as a set of edit instructions, specific enough that they can be applied 
without ambiguity[1].  In particular, the existing Details section uses 
terms like "could be" and "Another acceptable (and probably even better) 

All Rationale and use case information needs to be moved out of the
Details section.  What should remain should constitute a single
proposal.  Should there be a desire to submit multiple proposals, that
can be discussed, though the clear preference of the co-chairs would be
to have a single proposal.

Until this feedback is addressed, the Allow proposal is not accepted.

In addition, the rationale section of the Allow proposal is deficient as 
written. It just states some facts, but does not relate them to a reason 
for allowing the construct. The first sentence of the Summary section 
does provide a plausible reason, so perhaps that should be included in 

The Rationale could also be strengthened by providing use cases.

The Keep proposal is acceptable as is, but could benefit by addressing
the feedback that has already been provided on list[2].

- Sam Ruby

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0790.html
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:10:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:51 UTC