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 12:06:34 -0500
Message-ID: <52B1D61A.3040108@intertwingly.net>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On 12/18/2013 11:22 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 12/18/2013 07:53 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>>> 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.
> MSE has a normative dependency on the HTML5 media element. Since it
> is an extension spec, it seems strange to consider it proceeding ahead of
> HTML5.

Welcome to the new W3C :-)


> Note: It is entirely possible, and with the current state of affairs likely,
> that MSE will return for a brief Last Call to resolve the outstanding Stream
> dependency once the Stream API settles down.
> We discussed this at TPAC: http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-html-wg-minutes.html#item01

Is the assumption that that this is to happen after CR?


> Cheers,
> Adrian.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:07:09 UTC

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