Re: ISSUE-6: suggest closing (keeping video and audio in the scope of the HTML working group)

On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 22:19 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> This issue is based on an email of mine responding to Chris Wilson, in  
> a dicussion of pros and cons of the <video> and <audio> elements. The  
> issue doesn't really propose an action.

Are issues supposed to propose actions? I thought they were supposed
to be somewhat neutral on the possible outcomes. Anyway...

This is part of an attempt on my part to do a certain amount of
explicit requirements negotiation. Whenever I noticed a big chunk
of stuff in the HTML 5 spec that wasn't in the HTML 4 spec, I put
it in the issues list under the requirements product to ensure
that the WG is somewhat conscious/explicit about accepting requirements.

I do agree that we've demonstrated a critical mass of support
for this feature/requirement and it's time to wrap up this issue.

>  It has also been somewhat  
> overtaken by events - <video> has been in the spec for some time and  
> is shipping in a number of browsers. On 2008-06-19, Mike Smith  
> suggested closing this issue:
> "2008-06-19 17:16:24: the fact that we have already published a two  
> WDs with video and audio in them has to some degree made this a moot  
> point; this is a candidate for just being closed [Michael(tm) Smith]"
> I suggest that we take Mike's advice and close this issue. If anyone  
> wants to state an actual objection to <video> and <audio> being in the  
> spec, they remain free to do so, and should raise the appropriate  
> technical arguments on the list.
> Regards,
> Maciej
Dan Connolly, W3C
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 22:37:49 UTC