W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2010

[Bug 10619] Allowing A WebSRT voice declaration when the cue payload is WebSRT metadata text does not make sense, I think.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:58:07 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OvCM3-0004ZL-Lu@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #3 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-09-13 16:58:06 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This isn't a W3C document, is it? This isn't part of the HTML WG effort,
> > either, is it?
> As a co-chair, I will state that the WHATWG has permission to use the W3C
> hosted bugzilla for this purpose.

How then is a person supposed to know when a work is officially sanctioned as
an HTML WG work, and when a work does not have this official sanctioning? Just
saying the component is "other" doesn't change the fact that it is listed as a
product of the HTML WG. In particular, linking it to an external document just
adds to the confusion.

Is this a product of the HTML WG, or not? It shows up in queries as one. It
shows in the front page of the HTML WG as a new bug that hasn't been resolved. 

I would assume if the W3C is generously sharing its bug facility with other
organizations, they would at least do so in such a way that there is no
assumption that this bug is part of an official work within the W3C.

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 Monday, 13 September 2010 16:58:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:24 UTC