Re: Audio WG telecons and first draft

I think Chris Rogers is currently on vacation for one more week. Chris is
this the case, and when might you be available again?

Joe, I completely agree with your statement: "This is a crucial spec for
the web and for the music software business in particular."

This is why I would like to avoid holding telecons that do not have both a
Google and a Mozilla representative present. However, if the rest of the
group disagree, we can meet anyway. :)

(There is also nothing stopping us discussing things on the mailing list in
the mean-time.)

For now, I have set up the following Doodle poll. Please fill this out at
your earliest convenience:
http://www.doodle.com/k9nz8b8x23t58iqm

Many thanks!

Alistair









On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>wrote:

> I would just like to add my voice to Thierry's request. This is a crucial
> spec for the web and for the music software business in particular.  Right
> now it is difficult to point to this group's progress as a sign that HTML5
> audio is taking a clear shape, when the meetings occur so rarely and there
> is no clear roadmap to resolving the different proposals.
>
> At the same time, I feel we may be just a short distance away from
> resolving these questions and achieving a great deal. Let's try to get
> there.  It only needs some sustained attention and effort.
>
> Best,
>
> ... .  .    .       Joe
>
> *Joe Berkovitz*
> President
> Noteflight LLC
> 84 Hamilton St, Cambridge, MA 02139
> phone: +1 978 314 6271
> www.noteflight.com
>
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:44 AM, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>
> Alistair,
>
>
> Could you please schedule Audio WG telecons. We need to have regular
> weekly calls if we want to move forward.
>
> We have a draft spec on the table as a firts publication
> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/drafts/1WD/
>
> We need to discussed the last bits, especially the SOTD section.
>
> We have 2 different proposals concurrently, we should have a statement
> about how we plan to resolve the issue, how people should review the
> proposals, and perhaps other details like implementation status; I'd also
> like to see a more comparative description, etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thierry
>
>
>