W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [media] proposed a11y TF letter on issue-152

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:40:04 -0700
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4B07CD9F-BB69-40F5-9566-0EE9D036A6AF@netflix.com>

On Apr 20, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> I would personally think that we can resolve the 5 changes through the
> bug tracker and that they are not substantial to be solved before LC.
> They are "part of the plumbing" as John put it so nicely. But it is
> indeed a good question whether turning the 5 changes into bugs would
> be agreeable with other members of the group.

I disagree that the "track kind" is "part of the plumbing". Whether you can, or cannot, discover the types of tracks available from a script makes the difference (for me at least) as to whether this multi-track support is useful or not.

I would at least like to hear Ian's opinion on the "track kind" issue before agreeing that it can be dealt with as a bug, with the associated possibility that multi-track support goes into the LC draft without this feature. It's there for text tracks and I don't see any difference in rationale when considering audio and video tracks.


> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On 04/20/2011 09:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> We appreciate the extra time provided to us by the chairs to further
>>> discuss the submitted four change proposals and come to an agreement.
>>> There have indeed been lengthy discussions during the provided time
>>> frame and we have made great progress.
>> Something to consider: think about what you could do if you had until May
>> 14th...[1]
>>> The group has come to a consensus on which proposal to support. While
>>> some of our feedback on that change proposal has already been taken on
>>> board, there is still a list of 5 outstanding changes that need to be
>>> addressed for the specification text to be complete.
>> One way to proceed is to see if that number can be reduced between now and
>> Friday, and then to have a survey on the remaining items (asking for
>> objections to INCLUDING and objections to EXCLUDING each change).  The
>> results of the decision will affect what goes out in the Last Call.  The
>> standard for revisiting the decision would be New Information or a Formal
>> Objection.
>> Another way to proceed is to open bug reports on each and continue to work
>> on them until May 14th.  Changes over which there is WG consensus can be
>> made during that time.  Changes that reduce consensus can be reverted[2].
>> With the second approach, it still will be possible to raise issues and have
>> these issues resolved in time for HTML5 (as in CR, PR, and Rec). What you
>> gain if you go this way is a few more weeks to find WG wide consensus.  What
>> you lose is the opportunity to get these changes into the spec in time for
>> Last Call over objections should the chairs find that there to be stronger
>> objections to EXCLUDING these changes than there is to INCLUDING these
>> changes.
>> At this point, the issue has been raised and Change Proposals have been
>> written so the only way we will decide to close this issue and proceed with
>> bugs is if we have Amicable Consensus to do so.  If anybody objects to such
>> an approach, we will go with a survey.
>> - Sam Ruby
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0759.html
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0125.html
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 16:40:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:54 UTC