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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:53:00 -0400
Message-ID: <517024EC.4000808@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
On 04/18/2013 11:00 AM, Fred Andrews 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.

I disagree.

The chairs have talked at length with W3C management, and gotten 
feedback that these use cases being pursued by EME within scope.

If you have other use cases that you wish to pursue, then you are 
welcome to do so.  Feel free to develop and bring forward a 
specification for the group to consider.

But I've heard nothing that states that those that are working on EME 
must accept every and all use cases.

> cheers
> Fred

- Sa

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> <mailto: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 16:53:26 UTC

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