- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:38:08 -0800
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On Dec 12, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote: >> I think issue #19673 [1] would benefit the most from being included in the FPWD, and exposed to a broader audience. > > Why would this bug "benefit the most"? I am becoming quite concerned that we will never get a FPWD if we insist on getting everyone's "most important bug" solved in the FPWD. > > In my view it is time to move to a "date driven schedule" for both the MSE and EME FPWD's. We should pick a date and agree that we will all work to get as many bugs resolved by that date. Anything not done by that date will simply wait for a subsequent WD which could be as soon as we want after the FPWD. I agree with Paul. FPWD doesn't have to be perfect or complete. It just has to be a reasonable starting point. The W3C Process says: "In order to make Working Drafts available to a wide audience early in their development, the requirements for publication of a Working Draft are limited to an agreement by a chartered Working Group to publish the technical report and satisfaction of the Team's Publication Rules[PUB31]. Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the Working Group may request publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements." The upshot is that Working Groups should look to publish a First Public Working Draft early in development, even if it is incomplete and unstable. The two media extensions have arguably already waiting too long by this standard. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 09:39:05 UTC