Re: Moving past last call for HTML5

>
> The approach of just ducking controversy doesn't improve accessibility.

Making "requirements" couched in lots of subjective, unverifiable 
qualifying language resembles ducking controversy to me.

>   It
> attempts to put an immediate spec-writing and working-group benefit
> (namely, being able to move forward without objections) ahead of the user.
> This, IMHO, is unacceptable (and is counter to our design principles).

I don't think this kind of argument is productive. Using it, someone 
claiming to represent users could challenge any edit to the document. In 
other words, it's "wrapping yourself in the flag".

> It
> also doesn't actually work, because it won't get any more consensus -- it
> will just move the objections from one group of people to another.
>    

The first part of that sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the second.

- Rob