Re: Moving forward with MultiTrack API [was: Agenda: HTML-A11Y 18 March HEADS UP! at 15:00Z]

Hi all,

There hasn't been any new feedback on this particular discussion for a
long time. I agree with Michael and Maciej and see no need to delay
this proposal any further, since the recommended changes related to
the consensus check at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/multitrack-api/results have been
discussed on the list and changes undertaken.

In view of the 5th April deadline by the HTML WG on making progress on
Issue 9 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/9), I will post this
proposal to the HTML WG on Monday.

I suggest if anyone has more issues to contribute on this proposal
(the Media Multitrack API proposal), please contribute to the
discussion that will be started in the HTML WG.


PLEASE NOTE that I am deliberately NOT moving the "Media Text
Associations" proposal forward to the HTML WG, but only the "Media
Multitrack API" which seems a lot less controversial. Since Sean Hayes
recent joining of the TF and his recent contribution to that proposal,
there are another few changes to make to the "Media Text Associations"
proposal, which I hope we can get done through and after the F2F.
Also, it seems Dick Bulterman is preparing a proposal that may
influence the "Media Text Associations" proposal, so I suggest we wait
until the F2F on these.


Regards,
Silvia.




On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> Before the broader issue of lack of integration of explicit timing
>> in HTML5 arose, we seemed within the task force to have a
>> prevailing consensus that the Multitrack API was viable enough as
>> a proposal within the requirements it is scoped for (which are
>> bound by the current design of the media elements in the HTML5
>> spec) that we were ready to proceed with putting it forward for
>> wider discussion within the HTML WG.
>>
>> So I would like to propose that we do go ahead and move forward
>> with it, along with explicitly noting for the record that you are
>> working in parallel on putting together a note (or change
>> proposal?) for the broader issue of integration of explicit timing
>> in HTML5, and with the understanding that your work on that can
>> proceed in parallel to further discussion within the HTML WG of
>> the Multitrack API as it is currently scoped.
>
> +1
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 3 April 2010 08:23:20 UTC