Sam Ruby wrote:
On 06/03/2010 11:12 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
And a single instance of showing that we already have existing
technology that provides the exact same functionality as
figure/figcaption should also have been considered a strong objection to
the creation of two new elements. Two elements, may I had, that do not
provide the same accessibility functionality as the frugal alternative I
provided.
You did not address my objection in your decision, Sam. You completely
and totally ignored it.
From:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/att-0029/figure.txt
"4. Added complexity and ambiguity.
The figure element is confusing. As Shelley delineates in her Change
Proposals, the definitions of the aside and figure sound almost
identical, except that figure has a caption. They are not only
uncomfortably generic but also dangerously close in meaning, which
adds complexity and ambiguity. This is a symptom of a spec that
doesn't do its job. Bad complexity leads to frustration, wasted time
and wasted money."
From:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0002.html
"Added complexity and ambiguity is a valid argument. Unfortunately, it
is not exactly a binary quality. It is not like you can remove the
figure element and HTML5 will suddenly become simple. The relevant
question is whether the additional complexity is merited. Observing
whether or not this gets implemented and how users react to the
implementation is the best way to determine if that balance is right.
Net: there is only one potentially strong argument relevant at this
time for removing the figure element, and that is the complexity
argument. However, we find the objections to removing the element to
be stronger -- at this point in time."
No, Sam, that was Laura's argument. It was a good argument, but it is
not the same argument. Any reasonable person can see the two are not the
same argument. You did not address MY arguments, MY objections. You
didn't even reference them in the decision. How can you say it was
strong or not, when you didn't even reference it in the decision! And
you're still not responding to it.
But in the instructions for the survey, you told people not to repeat
what was in the proposals, but to only add additional arguments. This
means that whatever arguments I brought up, or whatever arguments were
brought up in the counter-proposal, were not addressed.
You did not address my concerns. You did not include an evaluation of my
objections. You're literally following what the W3C has written in how
to handle dissent, without consideration for what might have been the
intent behind such words.
Frankly? I think my argument was a strong argument, was a good
objection, but admitting such would not meet the interests of
expediency. The browser implementation companies want this element,
therefore no other argument need be considered. You said as much in your
decision. This doesn't strike me as meeting the new W3C CEO's interest
in engaging members from communities outside of just the vendors.
Why would members in other communities feel that they can contribute in
a W3C working group, when the working group co-chairs disregard the
community concerns in the interest of supporting the browser
companies--the guys who pay the W3C bills.
We are willing to reopen the discussion should there be new
information presented[1]. I do not see the above as being new
information. If anyone here believes that their concerns are not
being duly considered by the group, the W3C has a process[2] for that
too.
Rather than apply the decision process in good faith, rather than
provide thoughtful, considerate decisions that take into account ALL
objections, concerns, and suggestions, what you're advocating is slowing
up the progression of the specification by forcing us to file numerous
Formal Objections, which then have to be addressed by the W3C Director.
You're in effect, passing the buck. I'm not sure the Director is going
to be appreciative.
But you give me no alternative but to file a Formal Objection. It is the
only way I know of to ensure a decision that is based on something other
than expediency. The Director may agree with you, but I hope he will at
least _read_ my proposal: fairly, openly, and without the bias evident
in the HTML WG.
- Sam Ruby
[1]
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGAppeals
Shelley
