W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Feedback from FOMS

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:59:59 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831001270259l3cbe99afsb3104b4b5b6c4e4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Philip Jšgenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:21:34 +0100, RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Silvia,
>>> Thanks for this very valuable report from FOMS.
>>>> After it was understood what the spec is about, it was suggested we
>>>> split out those sections that are already stable and move those that
>>>> are still in the works into a draft for later release. Thus, we can
>>>> create a first, simple "versions" that can be implemented in full
>>>> right now.
>>> I understand the need for the developers to be informed of what is stable
>>> in a evolving spec and what is not, but I'm not a big fan of splitting
>>> documents. Our charter tells what the 1.0 version should cover. I would
>>> rather suggest we mark explicitly in our document the sections that we
>>> consider are stable giving a clear 'go' to web developers to start implement
>>> them and mark as unstable the sections we are actively working on.
>> I think this is a good idea, it's approximately how HTML5 handles the issue
>> of sections with different maturity levels in the same spec.
> I'm happy with this, too.

In the meeting today I suggested that in the next meeting we get the
section that I think we all agree on (section 5.2.1
and everything that it includes) into a shape such that we can mark it
as "finished and read for implementation". Then we can hand this on to
browser developers (in particular Opera and Firefox) for

Philip mentioned one outstanding issue, which has to do with time spec
and he will raise it on mailing list so we can resolve it by next

Further then: prepare your arguments for next week's meeting if you
don't think 5.2.1 is ready. :-)

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 11:00:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:44 UTC