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

Re: TextTrack API changes

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:09:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d5s-VCeP6HKOnE-8vb0t2QB0P5C9sdXKahYqC9uMXdaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> 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?
>

At this point, I would prefer that the entire change be reverted, and that
you propose which members are to be moved into WebVTTCue, we then discuss
that to reach consensus on this set, and then you make a new change.

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I generally support a change to
move VTT specific members to WebVTTCue, but I don't support changing
important members that have been present now for some time, for which
implementation activity has already occurred in a non-VTT context, and for
which a default behavior can be reasonably defined in the absence of a text
track specific defined semantics.

Further, just so it's clear that this is not a personal matter, I have the
highest regard for your technical editing and appreciate your dedication
and results. At the same time, I cannot agree that these changes should be
made unilaterally in the face of member objections, and I would urge you to
be sensitive to the need to revert changes post facto when member
objections arise. It is better in such cases for the WG to make a decision,
and then you can implement that decision without the need for unnecessary
distractions.

G.
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 05:10:35 UTC

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