W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [media] proposed a11y TF letter on issue-152

From: Bob Lund <B.Lund@CableLabs.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:58:24 -0600
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <114DAD31379DFA438C0A2E39B3B8AF5D01841D3520@srvxchg>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Watson
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:40 AM
> To: Silvia Pfeiffer; Ian Hickson
> Cc: Sam Ruby; public-html-a11y@w3.org Task Force
> Subject: Re: [media] proposed a11y TF letter on issue-152
> 
> 
> On Apr 20, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> 
> > I would personally think that we can resolve the 5 changes through the
> > bug tracker and that they are not substantial to be solved before LC.
> > They are "part of the plumbing" as John put it so nicely. But it is
> > indeed a good question whether turning the 5 changes into bugs would
> > be agreeable with other members of the group.
> 
> I disagree that the "track kind" is "part of the plumbing". Whether you
> can, or cannot, discover the types of tracks available from a script
> makes the difference (for me at least) as to whether this multi-track
> support is useful or not.
> 
> I would at least like to hear Ian's opinion on the "track kind" issue
> before agreeing that it can be dealt with as a bug, with the associated
> possibility that multi-track support goes into the LC draft without this
> feature. It's there for text tracks and I don't see any difference in
> rationale when considering audio and video tracks.
> 
> ...Mark
>

I concur that "track kind" is important to the usefulness of multi-track. I would also prefer to see it in the LC draft is possible. As I recall, the plumbing comment was specific to how the agreed upon semantics of autoplay would be designed. 

Bob Lund
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Silvia.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> >> On 04/20/2011 09:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We appreciate the extra time provided to us by the chairs to further
> >>> discuss the submitted four change proposals and come to an
> agreement.
> >>> There have indeed been lengthy discussions during the provided time
> >>> frame and we have made great progress.
> >>
> >> Something to consider: think about what you could do if you had until
> >> May 14th...[1]
> >>
> >>> The group has come to a consensus on which proposal to support.
> >>> While some of our feedback on that change proposal has already been
> >>> taken on board, there is still a list of 5 outstanding changes that
> >>> need to be addressed for the specification text to be complete.
> >>
> >> One way to proceed is to see if that number can be reduced between
> >> now and Friday, and then to have a survey on the remaining items
> >> (asking for objections to INCLUDING and objections to EXCLUDING each
> >> change).  The results of the decision will affect what goes out in
> >> the Last Call.  The standard for revisiting the decision would be New
> >> Information or a Formal Objection.
> >>
> >> Another way to proceed is to open bug reports on each and continue to
> >> work on them until May 14th.  Changes over which there is WG
> >> consensus can be made during that time.  Changes that reduce
> consensus can be reverted[2].
> >>
> >> With the second approach, it still will be possible to raise issues
> >> and have these issues resolved in time for HTML5 (as in CR, PR, and
> >> Rec). What you gain if you go this way is a few more weeks to find WG
> >> wide consensus.  What you lose is the opportunity to get these
> >> changes into the spec in time for Last Call over objections should
> >> the chairs find that there to be stronger objections to EXCLUDING
> >> these changes than there is to INCLUDING these changes.
> >>
> >> At this point, the issue has been raised and Change Proposals have
> >> been written so the only way we will decide to close this issue and
> >> proceed with bugs is if we have Amicable Consensus to do so.  If
> >> anybody objects to such an approach, we will go with a survey.
> >>
> >> - Sam Ruby
> >>
> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0759.html
> >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0125.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 21:58:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:19 UTC