W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:14:34 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dff-np7Rtf0aa+-kiPTHjwTHy+FfXte2tEdXTKz4QWKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

> The HTML WG no longer has any standing to 'support' or not 'support' the
> use cases and requirements of the EME specification - the Director of the
> W3C has communicated this clearly.

> Please do not mis-represent the HTML WG has having any authority to
> do so.

Wrong. Further, you clearly don't understand the W3C working process. If
you want to affect the outcome of this work, then you need to work with the
CG to bring forward relevant use cases, requirements, etc. It serves nobody
for you to bypass the CG and demand new requirements be satisfied by the WG.

As submitted, your bug report is invalid on the surface since it does not
propose a new use case; further, it is not addressed to the CG. If, after
you discuss in the CG and the CG suggests it be brought back to the WG for
technical action, then a new bug can be entered.

There is no penalty in closing the bug now and opening a new one in the
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 15:15:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:35 UTC