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

Re: TextTrack API changes

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:01:58 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nHAowdEC5BQcwY=LWeJpE_wQSJ=DPLHtrErUDiT5f3kQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
> 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 have used the words "please" and "I would ask". That doesn't sound
> intimidating.
>

There is no "please" or "I would ask" in this statement of yours:

"Silvia, you don't have carte blanche to make backwards incompatible
changes. Period. I don't imagine why you might think you do.  We have
objections to this change. How far do you want to escalate this? Just say
OK, and revert it, then we can stop discussing it. For your info, it is not
the onus of the objectors to convince you not to make this change. The onus
is on you to convince the rest of us that a backward incompatible change is
justified. And you haven't done that. The Zero Change Proposal wins."




>  As for what you have the right to do, I would suggest that, in the
> absence of WG guidance, you do not in fact have the right to make
> unilateral substantive changes. Or, if you do make such changes, then you
> should be prepared to revert them in the face of objections and defer the
> issue to the WG.
>

The change has only been applied to an editor's draft of a document with a
request for feedback. We are working through the feedback and that is not
finished. I am in favor of the change myself, but I do want good reasons -
providing an additional document is a fair request, in particular since not
everyone in the WG supports the change back.

You would not want me to revert the whole change. You only want me to
change a small part of it. Why not register a bug and start from there?

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 05:02:45 UTC

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