- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 19:31:23 -0500
- To: 'Charles McCathie Nevile' <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- CC: public-html-media@w3.org
On 12/17/2013 05:17 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > > I felt it was important not to leave something > apparently unanswered just because it didn't seem to introduce anything > new to me. Forgive the aggressive snippage, but I see something apparently unanswered. >>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Paul Cotton >>> <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> >>> >>> If you look at the log, you will further note that the reason for >>> raising this against MSE first is that MSE is likely to ship well >>> before HTML. >> >> So I feel like there are 2 parts to this. >> First, if this type of accessibility is a true core value of the W3C it >> seems like HTML should not be able to ship w/o this. > > Indeed. I would expect very strong objection at the AC level if HTML > simply ignored the use case. (After all, some people pay their > membership fee specifically to work on accessibility in W3C - I can > think of at least a dozen members where that is pretty close to their > only reason for being in W3C... For the sake of discussion, lets take as a given that does support multiple synchronized tracks, and if for any reason that assumption turns out to be incorrect, this will be treated as a blocking bug. With that assumption in place, can you comment on the reason for raising this against MSE at this time? Quoted above is an assertion that the reason that this is being done is due to the timing of the two specs. Care to comment on that assertion? - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 00:31:50 UTC