- From: Bob Lund <B.Lund@CableLabs.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 19:54:40 +0000
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Silvia Pfeiffer (silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com)" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Please see in-line. On 5/13/14, 1:10 PM, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote: >The Chairs have discussed this matter and have a counter proposal on how >to publish this material. > >We believe you want to publish your document [1] along the same lines as >the "Media Source Extensions Byte Stream Format Registry" was published >and referenced from the MSE specification. > >MSE CR refers to the document as an Informative Reference. See [2] and >below: > > A.2 Informative references > [REGISTRY] Aaron Colwell Media Source Extensions Byte Stream Format >Registry. 02 December 2013 URL: >http://www.w3.org/2013/12/byte-stream-format-registry/ > >It is very important to get agreement that the material in your proposed >document is in fact "Informative" if we are to follow this example. >Please confirm. I believe there is consensus that the guidelines in this spec are important for interoperability and I would like to follow the MSE byte stream registry format [4] that has an informative reference to the registry and a normative 'must conformı in the text. I will open a HTML 5.0 bug with the exact proposed changes. I will add a comment to each of existing HTML bugs 25132, 25133, 24986 and 24997 that references this new bug. [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#byte-stream-formats > >If you agree with this approach then we would need to: > >a) Publish your document in W3C space along the lines of how we published >"Media Source Extensions Byte Stream Format Registry", >b) Add an informative reference to HTML 5.0 (and HTML 5.1) to the new >document. > >In addition bug 25133 Comment 2 [3] seems to imply there is material in >HTML that should be changed/moved to this new document. Before we >proceed the HTML WG should be explicitly informed of exactly what changes >are being proposed. > >A good way to carry out the above steps would be to open a HTML5.0 bug >that describes the exact proposed changes and to put it before the HTML >WG. > >Please let us know if this proposal meets your original objectives. > >/paulc >HTML WG co-chair > >[1] >http://rawgit.com/silviapfeiffer/HTMLSourcingInbandTracks/master/index.htm >l >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#references >[3] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25133#c2 > >Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada >17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 >Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bob Lund [mailto:B.Lund@CableLabs.com] >Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:59 AM >To: Paul Cotton; Silvia Pfeiffer (silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com) >Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org >Subject: Re: HTML WG Note publication of sourcing in-band media resources > > > >On 5/13/14, 8:44 AM, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote: > >>I have a couple of questions about this request: >> >>1. License >> >>>This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 >>>License. >> >>Are you willing to publish this under the W3C Document license and the >>CC-BY license as per: >>http://www.w3.org/blog/2013/09/a-dual-license-for-the-html-working-grou >>p/ > >Yes > >> >>2. HTML WG Note >> >>Notes are not usually updated. >>http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#tr-end >> >>If you expect to make any changes to this specification should we not >>publish it as a Working Draft first? For example if we received >>feedback on the specification it would be easier to accept that feedback >>on a >>Working Draft. Going directly to a WG Note is actually a rare plan. > >We wil request a FPWD first. > >> >>3. Relationship to HTML 5.0 and 5.1 >> >>I understand from reading one of referenced bugs that material included >>in this specification would be removed from the HTML specification. Am >>I correct that this material would only be removed from HTML 5.1? If >>so then the Normative Reference should probably be changed from the >>HTML 5.0 CR to HTML 5.1. > >The document provides clarification of normative language in HTML 5.0 >that aids interoperability so making the change in 5.0 would be better, >assuming we can get to Note status in a timely manner. > >> >>/paulc >>HTML WG co-chair >> >>Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada >>17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 >>Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Bob Lund [mailto:B.Lund@CableLabs.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:31 AM >>To: public-html-admin@w3.org >>Subject: HTML WG Note publication of sourcing in-band media resources >> >>Dear all, >> >>I would like to submit the "Sourcing In-band Media Resource Tracks from >>Media Containers into HTML" specification for publication as an HTML WG >>Note from the latest editors' draft here: >> >>http://rawgit.com/silviapfeiffer/HTMLSourcingInbandTracks/master/index. >>htm >>l >>. >> >>The technical discussion for creating such a note can be found here: >> >>https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25133 >>https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25133#c7 >>https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25133#c8 >> >>Thanks, >>Bob Lund >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 19:55:11 UTC