W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

FW: Issue-152 (multitrack-media-resources): Call for Consensus

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, <public-html@w3.org>
Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <015c01cc0162$8cddf140$a699d3c0$@edu>
Sam Ruby wrote:

> Based on all of the the above, it is my (personal, non-binding)
> recommendation that we simply allow Ian to withdraw his proposal; we
> ask Ian to update the W3C draft, preferably today, to include the API 
> changes that he has been shepherding; and ask that bug reports be opened
> on these additions (Sylvia would you be willing to do this?).
> 
> That being said, we previously gave until today for people to produce
> Alternate or Counter Proposals, and we plan to keep to that.  If we do
> not receive such today, we will treat all proposals as withdrawn and
> close issue 152 without prejudice as requested.  If we do receive a
> proposal, and don't hear otherwise, then we will presume that Ian's
offer
> to withdraw his proposal as being rescinded, and we will proceed to
> evaluate the two proposals.  If those who prefer to not include these
> additions at this time wish to request a brief period of time (as in a
> few days) to update their proposal, such a request will likely be
granted.
> 
> The operational affect of opening bugs and closing the issue without
> prejudice is that these additions can still make last call if resolved
> without objection.  And the issue itself can be reopened at any time --
> albeit as a last call issue -- simply by providing a Change Proposal.

Chairs,

After consulting with a number of the members of the media sub-team, it
appears we are left with having to accept this recommendation, as we lack
the time and resources to fully articulate a robust enough Change Proposal
in a relatively short period of time (given that the deadline is fast
approaching, and even with a short extension we are faced with a holiday
weekend, etc.).

It is unfortunate that the consensus position captured by the media
sub-team (after a lot of hard work and effort on the part of that team),
and outlined in Silvia's email of earlier is not being addressed at this
time, as it, if nothing else, does a disservice to the notion of
consensus-based Standard's building within the W3C. Equally however I note
that much of the feedback submitted by the sub-team is addressed in the
text currently in the SVN.

At this time then, on behalf of the sub-team, we accept Sam's
recommendation as a way forward for Issue 152, while also noting that 5
bugs will be lodged against the 5 outstanding consensus issues noted in
Silvia's email: 

(1) track kind for in-band tracks
(2) loop attribute for grouped multitrack
(3) autoplay attribute for grouped multitrack
(4) readyState for grouped multitrack
(5) onended event

After discussion with a number of the sub-team members we plan to issue
Change Proposals against those bugs in quick order.

On behalf of the Media Sub-team,

JF
Received on Saturday, 23 April 2011 03:00:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:28 GMT