W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2010

Moving forward with MultiTrack API [was: Agenda: HTML-A11Y 18 March HEADS UP! at 15:00Z]

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:25:01 +0900
To: Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>
Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100319062501.GA6378@sideshowbarker>
Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>, 2010-03-18 10:07 +0100:

> Hi all,
> 
> I giving a talk in a seesion today that conflicts with the call -- I
> won't be there. (Sorry.) For purposes of planning, I do expect to be
> at the F2F in April.
> 
> After some constructive exchanges with Silvia and Philip, I'm
> working on a note explaining how I view the integration of explicit
> timing in HTML5 as a good way to provide a flexible infrastructure
> for meeting a11y concerns, without imposing undue implementation
> effort.
> 
> I hope to be able to send this out by the weekend.

The phrase "integration of explicit timing in HTML5", along with
the related prior discussion that has taken place thus far on the
TF list, seem to suggest that the scope of the note you plan to
write is broader than the specific scope that has been set for the
current Multitrack API proposal.

Before the broader issue of lack of integration of explicit timing
in HTML5 arose, we seemed within the task force to have a
prevailing consensus that the Multitrack API was viable enough as
a proposal within the requirements it is scoped for (which are
bound by the current design of the media elements in the HTML5
spec) that we were ready to proceed with putting it forward for
wider discussion within the HTML WG.

So I would like to propose that we do go ahead and move forward
with it, along with explicitly noting for the record that you are
working in parallel on putting together a note (or change
proposal?) for the broader issue of integration of explicit timing
in HTML5, and with the understanding that your work on that can
proceed in parallel to further discussion within the HTML WG of
the Multitrack API as it is currently scoped.

Would you be able to agree to that?

To be clear, what I mean is that by proceeding with HTML WG
discussion about the current Multitrack API, we are not precluding
the eventual discussion, within the TF and eventually the WG, of
the broader issue that you've raised about integration of explicit
timing in HTML5, with the understanding that if the HTML5 spec
does end up needing to be changed to address that issue, the
Multitrack API would then also need to be updated.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 06:25:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:06 GMT