- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:09:46 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d5s-VCeP6HKOnE-8vb0t2QB0P5C9sdXKahYqC9uMXdaw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com > wrote: > > You would not want me to revert the whole change. You only want me to > change a small part of it. Why not register a bug and start from there? > At this point, I would prefer that the entire change be reverted, and that you propose which members are to be moved into WebVTTCue, we then discuss that to reach consensus on this set, and then you make a new change. Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I generally support a change to move VTT specific members to WebVTTCue, but I don't support changing important members that have been present now for some time, for which implementation activity has already occurred in a non-VTT context, and for which a default behavior can be reasonably defined in the absence of a text track specific defined semantics. Further, just so it's clear that this is not a personal matter, I have the highest regard for your technical editing and appreciate your dedication and results. At the same time, I cannot agree that these changes should be made unilaterally in the face of member objections, and I would urge you to be sensitive to the need to revert changes post facto when member objections arise. It is better in such cases for the WG to make a decision, and then you can implement that decision without the need for unnecessary distractions. G.
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 05:10:35 UTC