W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-9: video-synchronization - suggest closing on 2009-08-27

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:48:05 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <144D5E11-810B-4F26-9579-81A8C140CB5E@apple.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Aug 24, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 02:49 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/9
> [...]
>> In response, Dan Connoly said:
>>
>>> <DanC> I agree about 6, mjs, but not so sure about 9... heard some
>> sentiment for keeping it open too
>>
>> So, can anyone articulate these sentiments? Is it based on people on
>> the telecon expecting SMIL WG to be interested, even though they have
>> never commented on this issue since the time it was raised? Were any
>> of the people expressing this sentiment members of SMIL WG?
>
> My impression is that issue 10 was mostly about syntax (matching
> up attribute names) and that most of the mismatches are gone now,
> and that issue 9, video-synchronization, was about enriching
> the synchronization semantics of <video>, which some members
> of the SMIL WG seem interested in.

Have they ever said so? The only person I know of to ever express an  
interest in adding media synchronization to HTML5 <video> was Chris  
Wilson. And he didn't so much express an interest as worry that  
<video> may fail without it. If SMIL WG is indeed interested in this  
then we can leave the issue open pending a proposal. Or at least  
pending clarification whether they care about this.

>
> Something new (to me, at least) that came up in the call was
> something about mechanisms provided by <object param=...> that
> don't seem to be provided by <video>. I hope somebody sends
> mail about that soon.

Me too! I can't think of a reason <object param=...> would be needed,  
since that is a mechanism for sending extra parameters to plugins, but  
HTML5 video is not plugin based and as far as I know has no need for  
this. But perhaps there are use cases I'm not thinking of. I think  
someone said that SMIL <video> uses <param> tags, so it would fall  
under ISSUE-10 syntactic alignment, to consider this change. That  
being said, adding <param> support was not part of the SMIL WG's old  
recommendation.

> I don't have a strong opinion about where to track these details,
> but I have trained my head a little bit to track them under
> issue-9, so that's easiest for me.
>
> Meanwhile, the relevant action (Mike to check with Dick...)
> is tracked under issue-10. Go figure.

Yes, I'm expecting feedback based on ISSUE-10. Based on this, let's  
keep ISSUE-9 open until we get a clear answer from SMIL WG on it.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 20:48:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:44 GMT