Re: Action-219: Draft Response to MSE on Bug 23661

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 01:31:23 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  
wrote:

> On 12/17/2013 05:17 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>>
>> I felt it was important not to leave something
>> apparently unanswered just because it didn't seem to introduce anything
>> new to me.
>
> Forgive the aggressive snippage, but I see something apparently  
> unanswered.

(Sure. I think I answered it elsewhere, but…)

>>>>  On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Paul Cotton
>>>> <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
>>>>
>>>> If you look at the log, you will further note that the reason for
>>>> raising this against MSE first is that MSE is likely to ship well
>>>> before HTML.
>>>
>>> So I feel like there are 2 parts to this.
>>> First, if this type of accessibility is a true core value of the W3C it
>>> seems like HTML should not be able to ship w/o this.
>>
>> Indeed. I would expect very strong objection at the AC level if HTML
>> simply ignored the use case. (After all, some people pay their
>> membership fee specifically to work on accessibility in W3C - I can
>> think of at least a dozen members where that is pretty close to their
>> only reason for being in W3C...
>
> For the sake of discussion, lets take as a given that does support  
> multiple synchronized tracks, and if for any reason that assumption  
> turns out to be incorrect, this will be treated as a blocking bug.
>
> With that assumption in place, can you comment on the reason for raising  
> this against MSE at this time?  Quoted above is an assertion that the  
> reason that this is being done is due to the timing of the two specs.  
> Care to comment on that assertion?

HTML is expected to return to Last Call. MSE is not, as far as I am aware.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 12:54:03 UTC