W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > October 2010

Re: [Reminder] Response to your LC Comment -2398 on Media API spec

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:57:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB2DF71.1060309@w3.org>
To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>


Le 11/10/2010 10:51, timeless a écrit :
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Thierry MICHEL<tmichel@w3.org>  wrote:
>> saying you were traveling and would respond soon.
>
> thanks for the reminder. Sorry, I just caught up with all of my mail,
> and now can review.
>
>>   >  Scenario 2: Web service
>>   >  The API is implemented as a Web service. Such an implementation would
>>   >  be typically used by a non-UI client, such as an agent harvesting
>> metadata.
>>   >  However, the API could be also accessed from a user agent, and used the
>>   >  same way as described in scenario 1 by the help of a JavaScript
>> library for
>>
>> change "by" to "with"
>> [MA] Agreed.
>
> Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the version with this change integrated.
>
> I checked both:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-api-1.0/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/
>
> Both seem to have:
> | Scenario 2: Web service
> |    The API is implemented as a Web service. Such an implementation would
> | be typically used by a non-UI client, such as an agent harvesting metadata.
> | However, the API could be also accessed from a user agent, and used the
> | same way as described in scenario 1 _by the help_ of a JavaScript library for
> | accessing the web service.
>
>> [MA] Changed "back-end of the web service" to "In the implementation of
>> the web service".
>
> Nor can I find this. Is there an editor's draft I could review?

Here is the latest editor's draft:
http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the process, I was assuming that I could
> verify that the changes you've made properly integrated my comments
> and that I could review the general changes to the document. If all I
> can do is confirm that your proposed changes match what I'd hope for
> (because there isn't an updated document available for reading) then
> there isn't really anything more for me to say (and I'll just reply
> publicly indicating that I'm fine).

Some of the changes should be in the editor's draft. In some cases we 
wait until we have the commenters agreement on our proposal before 
updating the spec to avoid multiple updates.
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 09:57:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 October 2010 09:57:21 GMT