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

RE: Action-219: Draft Response to MSE on Bug 23661

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:22:34 +0000
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <cfa228829d354649871a8aa51d547038@BL2PR03MB604.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Wednesday, December 18, 2013, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 07:53 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> > HTML is expected to return to Last Call. MSE is not, as far as I am aware.
> I just want to make sure I understand.
> Just to be clear, you are *NOT* making the case that MSE is the correct
> place to levy this requirement, did I get this correct?
> Others, in fact, are making the case that the HTML specification the
> right place for this requirement.
> And, if I am reading you correctly, you would be fine if this
> requirement was satisfied in the HTML specification, as long as MSE were
> published after HTML.
> Note: I am not suggesting that MSE wait.  I am merely trying to
> understand what your position is.

MSE has a normative dependency on the HTML5 media element. Since it
is an extension spec, it seems strange to consider it proceeding ahead of

Note: It is entirely possible, and with the current state of affairs likely,
that MSE will return for a brief Last Call to resolve the outstanding Stream
dependency once the Stream API settles down.
We discussed this at TPAC: http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-html-wg-minutes.html#item01



Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 16:23:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:43 UTC