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

On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> 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...

I guess what I meant was, it's not clear to me from reading the issue  
what action might resolve it.

> 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 think that was a very sensible approach earlier in WG history. Now I  
would like to help make the Issue Tracker a tool that we can use to  
track progress towards Last Call. I think that means clearing up  
issues where we don't intend to take action.

I believe we are agreed on the bottom line for this issue, mainly I  
wanted to clarify my intent.


Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 23:40:01 UTC