- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 21:23:09 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9673
Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hober0@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com> 2010-05-06 21:23:09 ---
Responding to some of John's points:
> * This is a newly proposed file format that is not yet fully
> specified[...]
I'm sure this has been the case for every feature ever added to the HTML
spec. (Was any HTML4 feature "fully specified?") Ian's draft is where he
does the work of specifying things; at any given time, it contains many
different things, at different stages of development. This isn't a bad
thing. It allows all of us to follow along as things progress.
> * It has not been proven that the newly minted WebSRT format addresses
> all known accessibility issues[...]
It has not been proven that *any format* addresses all known
accessibility issues, much less any format suitable for the Web. This
isn't an argument against WebSRT, this is just Stop Energy dressed up as
an a11y Precautionary Principle.
> * It is likely that creating and defining a new Time Stamp format is
> out of scope for the HTML WG: in this way it is very similar to the
> introduction of Microdata (which has spun out to the HTML Microdata
> Draft) and RDFa (which has spun off to the HTML + RDFa Draft)
I don't have an opinion on the scope argument, but I don't think you're
making the best case for it here. Your two examples (Microdata and
HTML5+RDFa) have nothing to do with your scope claim--if Microdata or
HTML5+RDFa were out of scope for the WG, then we wouldn't have spun them
out *into documents within the WG*.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 21:23:11 UTC