- From: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:38:27 -0800
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA0c1bAmTbkkz1uTF=1dLKKEZFckKmhkb56mNk1ZW3T7kQi+xQ@mail.gmail.com>
I agree. I don't believe Bug 19673 is critical to the FPWD and I support leaving it out in the interest of getting to FPWD as quickly as possible. I don't really know what is involved in converting the MSE spec in to a FPWD. I realize we still have 3 outstanding bugs, but say I decided to punt them and publish FPWD today. What would I need to do to make that happen? I'm just trying to figure out what work remains for publishing a FPWD that isn't captured by a bug that blocks the Publish Media Source Extensions FPWD bug <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20253>. Aaron On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > 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 17:39:03 UTC