W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Issues 93, 95, 96, 97 for the HTML WG

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:01:01 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, benoit.piette@gmail.com, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-id: <3A5323D1-7B0E-4FC6-B1B9-3E2DCC9CC730@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Hi Shelley,

The chairs discussed this message. Oothers have spoken up in favor of your Change Proposals, and we have held a survey soliciting input from the group. At this point, we cannot withdraw them from consideration, and we will proceed to a decision.

You raise concerns that it may be more timely to consider these issues in the future, when there is more information. If, after the decisions are published, new information comes up, then you can always ask the Chairs to reopen these issues based on new information.

To address a concern you presented in a separate email, we are working to publish decisions on these four issues as soon as possible.

Regards,
Maciej


On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> I was originally concerned when I filed the bugs on removing details, hidden, aside, figure, progress, and meter that I was late in filing these bugs. At the time, I believe I should have filed these bugs a long time ago, before the existence of the elements (and attribute) became "codified" as part of HTML5.
> 
> I can see now, after the recent discussions regarding the figure and aside elements [1][2], that I was too early in filing the bugs and the eventual change proposals. The problem with the discussions about the elements and attribute at this time is that there is minimal (or no) implementation for each, and therefore we really can't fully judge whether the elements/attribute are useful or not. Or, for that matter, if the elements/attribute have the potential to be harmful. From the recent discussions, we're still not sure what each element is, and when and how it should be used.
> 
> Decisions have been made by the co-chairs on two of the items, figure and aside, but not on the others. I will not be objecting to the figure/aside decision, but am holding open the option to raise the issue with these elements again, once there is at least the minimal two implementations necessary for the elements to remain in the final release of HTML5. This should be allowable because the changed circumstances at that time will be implemented elements, where there is no implementation now.
> 
> I am also willing to forgo the co-chairs having to make a decision on the remaining change proposals:
> 
> Issue 93 on removing details
> 
> Issue 95 on removing the hidden attribute
> 
> Issue 96 on removing progress
> 
> Issue 97 on removing meter
> 
> Removing my change proposals would be contingent, though, on there not being an objection to my doing so from those who have objected to the counter-proposals for these items. If any of the individuals cc'd in this email wish to continue their objection to the counter-proposals for any of these items, I will continue my change proposal for the same item.
> 
> My objections to these elements and attribute still stand, as they are defined and worded in the HTML5 specification. My willingness to withdraw the change proposals now is that I believe it would be more appropriate to discuss the relevance and usefulness of these items when we've actually had a chance to see them implemented in a couple of browsers. We may find at that time that some of those who would support these elements and attribute now, would not do so then. And perhaps some who don't support the items now, would do so once they see an actual physical implementation.
> 
> Regardless, I believe it would be easier to focus on the technicalities of these items in our proposals and objections when we have actual technical implementations to review, test, evaluate, and compare across implementations. The browser vendors have expressed willingness, even eagerness, in implementing these items, so I expect that we will see implementations for all of these items in at least two browsers quite soon.
> 
> I apologize for not sending this email sooner. Again, it was only the recent discussions about figure and aside that made me realize that I was, perhaps, premature in my objections to these elements and attribute.
> 
> I will abide by the will of those who have objected to the counter-proposals, and to the co-chairs, of course. Note, though, that regardless of decision, I will not formally object to the result, if the result were to go against my change proposals. However, I will hold open the option of raising issues with these elements at a future time.
> 
> Also note that my objection to the co-chairs "grouping" these items for handling still stands. However, the objection is not a formal one, and is meant as a recorded protest against the co-chairs uneven handling of these items.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Shelley Powers
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0096.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0142.html
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 20:01:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:50 UTC