Re: TextTrack API changes

As it appears you do not wish to revert these changes in 5.1, I will ask
the chairs for an agenda item on this issue at the next meeting.



On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <
>> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Glenn,
>>>
>>> I am an editor of the HTML specification and while HTML5.1 is still an
>>> Editor's draft, I can make changes that address bugs and that I think will
>>> be implemented because they make sense, even if they are not backwards
>>> compatible. The particular change under discussion is one that you have
>>> yourself pursued to make the <track> element and TextTrack less dependent
>>> on WebVTT. The change that I applied to HTML5.1 supported that move.
>>>
>>> I am happy for the discussion that we have around the change, because it
>>> was suggested to backport that change to HTML5 (which, incidentally, hasn't
>>> happened yet). Changes to HTML5 that are not editorial are indeed more
>>> complicated, which is why I seeked WG feedback. This process has not been
>>> finished yet, so I don't understand why you are attacking me for the work
>>> that is done, diligently and thoroughly.
>>>
>>
>> First, I am not attacking you.
>>
>
> Your wording is intimidating and you claim I have no right to do what I
> do, which is not true.
>
>
> I am asking you to revert a change for which there are objections. Yes, I
>> support moving truly VTT specific APIs out of TextTrackCue, but these two
>> members are not VTT specific, and are written in a manner to abstract the
>> differences in actual text track format.
>>
>>
>>> While you and two others are now disagreeing with a part of the change
>>> that was made, Simon from Opera has agreed with that change. I want to
>>> continue this discussion until we find a consensus position. Providing
>>> specifications for TextTrackCue for other formats than WebVTT is part of
>>> that process.
>>>
>>
>> You are suggesting that it is possible to find a consensus to make your
>> proposed change in the face of objections from members. I will suggest it
>> is not.
>>
>
> The discussion is still active and not finalized. You cannot know.
>
>
>>  You propose a backwards incompatible change.
>>
>
> The main backwards incompatible change is one you do not disagree with:
> TextTrackCue has no constructor any longer, but can only be constructed
> given a particular format.
>
>
>
>> This is not something that should be implemented in your editorial work
>> in the face of member objections.
>>
>
> True for HTML5 and I have not done so. Not true for HTML5.1 - it is an
> editor's draft only at this stage. If that was the case, the Encrypted
> Media Extension would not exist.
>
>
>
>> The correct option for you is to revert the change, then ask the matter
>> to be brought to the WG for consideration. After due consideration, if the
>> WG decides it is best to make this change, then it will be made.
>>
>
> I have approached this even more carefully: I have not made a change to
> HTML5, but instead asked for input first.
>
>
>>  However, at this time, you appear to be attempting to usurp the role of
>> the WG in making substantive changes, which is not part of your role as
>> editor.
>>
>
> The role of an editor is to make changes.
>
>
>>> There are no change proposals involved at this stage - it is merely a
>>> discussion on the technical mailing list. If you want to go through the
>>> change proposal process, please follow the complete process as described in
>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html .
>>>
>>
>> Precisely. You are making substantive changes without a CP and without WG
>> approval. This is fine when there are no objections, but that is not the
>> case here.
>>
>
> Technical discussions on the HTML WG mailing list are encouraged. This is
> a technical discussion and it has not come to the end yet. There are
> objections for making the change and for not making the change, so the WG
> hasn't made up its mind yet.
>
>
>> It is not necessary to further discuss the technical merits of this
>> change with Opera in the face of these objections. That is something the WG
>> should undertake, not the editors.
>>
>
> I hope you are not implying that the opinion of Opera in the WG has no
> merit when other WG members oppose a change.
>
> Regards,
> Silvia.
>