W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > December 2013

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:57:40 -0500
Message-ID: <52B1A9D4.6060700@intertwingly.net>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: public-html-media@w3.org
On 12/18/2013 07:53 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> 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.

I just want to make sure I understand.

Just to be clear, you are *NOT* making the case that MSE is the correct 
place to levy this requirement, did I get this correct?

Others, in fact, are making the case that the HTML specification the 
right place for this requirement.

And, if I am reading you correctly, you would be fine if this 
requirement was satisfied in the HTML specification, as long as MSE were 
published after HTML.

Note: I am not suggesting that MSE wait.  I am merely trying to 
understand what your position is.

> cheers

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 13:58:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:01 UTC