- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:36:02 +0000
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "Silvia Pfieffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
On 24/09/2015 10:02, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> >wrote: >> On 24/09/2015 00:06, "singer@apple.com on behalf of David Singer" >> <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> >>>I’m fine with >>>* moving to more modern pub tools (Echidna) >>>* using Github issues rather than Bugzilla (even though I find github >>>issues/bug/conversations much harder to follow) >>>* moving to github and away from e.g. CVS >>> >>>It does seem…odd…to be in the whatwg part of github and not the general >>>W3C part. Not sure I follow this. >> >> +1. It's confusing and unhelpful. > >I am no longer one of the editors, but I definitely support hosting >WebVTT at the WHATWG. Both because of saner infrastructure (the >dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/ setup involved PhantomJS and CVS on my >private VPS) A github/w3c infrastructure would be fine also, right? > and because the text track model which WebVTT extends is >part of HTML, maintained by the WHATWG. Irrelevant in my opinion. There are many HTML extensions managed by a variety of groups. If WHATWG thinks they need to control/manage/maintain every extension to HTML then they will be a bottleneck. Better to target specific work in specific groups, like this one. Nigel > >Philip
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 09:36:40 UTC