Re: TextTrack API changes

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Glenn,
>>
>> I am an editor of the HTML specification and while HTML5.1 is still an
>> Editor's draft, I can make changes that address bugs and that I think will
>> be implemented because they make sense, even if they are not backwards
>> compatible. The particular change under discussion is one that you have
>> yourself pursued to make the <track> element and TextTrack less dependent
>> on WebVTT. The change that I applied to HTML5.1 supported that move.
>>
>> I am happy for the discussion that we have around the change, because it
>> was suggested to backport that change to HTML5 (which, incidentally, hasn't
>> happened yet). Changes to HTML5 that are not editorial are indeed more
>> complicated, which is why I seeked WG feedback. This process has not been
>> finished yet, so I don't understand why you are attacking me for the work
>> that is done, diligently and thoroughly.
>>
>
> First, I am not attacking you.
>

Your wording is intimidating and you claim I have no right to do what I do,
which is not true.


I am asking you to revert a change for which there are objections. Yes, I
> support moving truly VTT specific APIs out of TextTrackCue, but these two
> members are not VTT specific, and are written in a manner to abstract the
> differences in actual text track format.
>
>
>> While you and two others are now disagreeing with a part of the change
>> that was made, Simon from Opera has agreed with that change. I want to
>> continue this discussion until we find a consensus position. Providing
>> specifications for TextTrackCue for other formats than WebVTT is part of
>> that process.
>>
>
> You are suggesting that it is possible to find a consensus to make your
> proposed change in the face of objections from members. I will suggest it
> is not.
>

The discussion is still active and not finalized. You cannot know.


>  You propose a backwards incompatible change.
>

The main backwards incompatible change is one you do not disagree with:
TextTrackCue has no constructor any longer, but can only be constructed
given a particular format.



> This is not something that should be implemented in your editorial work in
> the face of member objections.
>

True for HTML5 and I have not done so. Not true for HTML5.1 - it is an
editor's draft only at this stage. If that was the case, the Encrypted
Media Extension would not exist.



> The correct option for you is to revert the change, then ask the matter to
> be brought to the WG for consideration. After due consideration, if the WG
> decides it is best to make this change, then it will be made.
>

I have approached this even more carefully: I have not made a change to
HTML5, but instead asked for input first.


>  However, at this time, you appear to be attempting to usurp the role of
> the WG in making substantive changes, which is not part of your role as
> editor.
>

The role of an editor is to make changes.


>> There are no change proposals involved at this stage - it is merely a
>> discussion on the technical mailing list. If you want to go through the
>> change proposal process, please follow the complete process as described in
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html .
>>
>
> Precisely. You are making substantive changes without a CP and without WG
> approval. This is fine when there are no objections, but that is not the
> case here.
>

Technical discussions on the HTML WG mailing list are encouraged. This is a
technical discussion and it has not come to the end yet. There are
objections for making the change and for not making the change, so the WG
hasn't made up its mind yet.


> It is not necessary to further discuss the technical merits of this change
> with Opera in the face of these objections. That is something the WG should
> undertake, not the editors.
>

I hope you are not implying that the opinion of Opera in the WG has no
merit when other WG members oppose a change.

Regards,
Silvia.