- From: Bob Lund <B.Lund@CableLabs.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:58:24 -0600
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, 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>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Watson > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:40 AM > To: Silvia Pfeiffer; Ian Hickson > Cc: Sam Ruby; public-html-a11y@w3.org Task Force > Subject: Re: [media] proposed a11y TF letter on issue-152 > > > 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. > > ...Mark > I concur that "track kind" is important to the usefulness of multi-track. I would also prefer to see it in the LC draft is possible. As I recall, the plumbing comment was specific to how the agreed upon semantics of autoplay would be designed. Bob Lund > > > > 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 21:58:59 UTC