W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > April 2013

RE: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.

From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:18:21 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU156-W645605CA61F2892D2DF814AACF0@phx.gbl>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>

If the W3C deems the use cases and requirements are out of scope
then I will request that all suggestion of a use or requirement be removed
from the EME specification, and then vacant of any use will request it
to be close as out of scope.

cheers
Fred

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:10:29 -0700
From: watsonm@netflix.com
To: fredandw@live.com
CC: public-html-media@w3.org; public-html-admin@w3.org
Subject: Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.



On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:




The HTML WG no longer has any standing to 'support' or not 'support' the
use cases and requirements of the EME specification - the Director of the
W3C has communicated this clearly.


Please do not mis-represent the HTML WG has having any authority to
do so.

My understanding of the decision is different. But nevertheless with your interpretation why are you raising these proposed new requirements in the WG at all ? Surely you should go directly to the CG with these ? Surely the bug should be closed as out-of-scope, if the above is what you think.

...Mark 
cheers
Fred

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:45:59 -0700

From: watsonm@netflix.com
To: fredandw@live.com
CC: public-html-media@w3.org; public-html-admin@w3.org

Subject: Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.

Fred,
The bug was not closed by the WG, but by Glenn.
As I mentioned in the bug there has previously been no support for the three requirements you propose, though I have no objection to us re-considering those proposals for a short while.


The questions of whether, by not adopting these requirements, we do or do not break with historical precedent for the "open web" and whether, if we do, that is a cause for concern are questions for the CG.


A pragmatic approach on your part would be just to raise these questions in the CG. However if you wish to go through another round of consideration in the WG, we can do that. I just don't expect a different outcome from the last round of discussions of the same issue. You can re-open the bug, which is usually the first step before jumping to a formal objection.


...Mark
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:




I formally object to members of the HTML WG  marking bug 21727
as invalid, see: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21727



This bug adds use cases and requirements to the EME specification.

The W3C has indicated that such work on the EME specification may proceed.

The director of the W3C has also communicated that meta level discussion


regarding the use cases and requirements of the EME specification is to
occur in the Restricted Media Community Group and this group is not
charted to have any standing to mark bugs at invalid.  Disagreement
with use cases and requirements is a meta level issue, thus the HTML WG


clearly has no standing to reject use cases and requirements on the
EME specification.

I demand that the HTML WG reopen bug 21727 and work to ensure that
the EME specification meets the use case and requirements.



cheers
Fred

 		 	   		  

 		 	   		  

 		 	   		  
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 15:18:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:33 UTC