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

Re: ISSUE-194

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:04:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kCvSfaObN2xeL6SzSV_ZaSdz9R-qiR_VmMXJQ61kiWag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
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.


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/TranscriptURL> 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 Saturday, 30 June 2012 19:04:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:23 UTC