Re: TextTrack API changes

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Apr 25, 2013, at 10:09 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> While the Chairs do ask for changes to be reverted in exceptional cases,
> we have usually only applied that policy starting with LC review. 5.1 is in
> a more open phase of development. If you disagree with a change by the
> editors, I'd likely suggest one of the following:
>
> a) File a bug explaining the problem.
>

Done. [1]

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21851


> b) In the ongoing mailing list discussion, describe specifically what you
> think the final state of the spec should be and why.
>

See [1].


>
> While there are times when "revert first, then we can talk about it" is
> reasonable, it is also the case that reverts can sometimes cause more drama
> than they resolve. So it's better to keep reverts rare.
>

I agree. That is why I first stated our preference [2]. That is why I
originally asked Silvia to restore a subset of the change [3].

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Apr/0098.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Apr/0113.html

It has only been because of lack of positive action on the editor's part
that I now ask for a revert.


>
>
> Additional note with chair hat off:
>
> I believe the trunk version of WebKit has the ability to expose in-band
> tracks in non-WebVTT formats.
>

It did, until Silvia made these changes. It no longer supports that as
defined. See [1].


> I've asked some of the relevant engineers what we do for the "text" and
> "getCueAsHTML()" properties in those cases. Hopefully that information will
> help the technical discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>