W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2012

答复: ISSUE-194

From: Sunyang (Eric) <eric.sun@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:57:48 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9254B5E6361B1648AFC00BA447E6E8C32AEB711F@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Yes, I guess we can reach a consensus at next html CC.
BTW, happy wedding and happy honeymoon:)

Yang
Huawei


> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
> 发送时间: 2012年7月1日 3:04
> 收件人: Maciej Stachowiak
> 抄送: Edward O'Connor; public-html@w3.org; HTML Accessibility Task Force
> 主题: Re: ISSUE-194
> 
> Hi Maciej,
> 
> You are correct in that both proposals are much more similar now.
> We did indeed try to find a compromise solution in the last meeting,
> but agreed to disagree at this stage.
> 
> I've still got a TODO to improve the TranscriptURL proposal with some
> language that compares it to the IDREFs proposal with
> advantages/disadvantages. I, however, have to attend to my wedding
> party tomorrow, so will not get to it before next week (and even then
> will take some time out from our honeymoon).  You can expect something
> before the end of the week.
> 
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> 
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ted & Silvia,
> >
> > It seems to me that the two transcript attribute proposals are now much
> closer than our original starting point. They are intended to meet the same
> requirements and satisfy the same use cases, and have pretty similar syntax
> and usage.
> >
> > Currently the proposals at
> <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/ISSUE-194/TranscriptU

> RL> and <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-194-2B>
> both propose a transcript attribute, one taking a URL, and the other taking a
> list of element IDs. However, neither provides direct rationale for why its
> form of the transcript attribute is different from the others. They focus more
> on why transcript support is useful at all, and on comparing to proposals no
> longer on the table.
> >
> > I think it would improve both proposals if they gave rationale for why their
> form of the transcript attribute is better than the other.
> >
> > It would be even better if we could reach consensus, given how close the
> two proposals now are, but I recognize that at some point we need to move
> on and make a decision if we do not have consensus.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Maciej
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Eric Carlson, John Foliot, Silvia Pfeiffer and I had a call today in
> >> which we attempted to resolve the remaining differences between our
> >> ISSUE-194 proposals. Unfortunately, we were unable to come to a
> >> consensus position. Given this, I will keep both of the following Change
> >> Proposals on the table for an eventual poll on ISSUE-194:
> >>
> >>  Defer ISSUE-194 until HTML.next
> >>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-194-6

> >>
> >>  Mint a transcript attribute for the programmatic association of
> >>  transcripts with media elements
> >>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-194-2B

> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ted
> >>
> >

Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 08:02:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:33 UTC