Re: ISSUE-9: video-synchronization - suggest closing on 2009-08-27

On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 02:49 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> In response, Dan Connoly said:
>  > <DanC> I agree about 6, mjs, but not so sure about 9... heard some  
> sentiment for keeping it open too
> So, can anyone articulate these sentiments? Is it based on people on  
> the telecon expecting SMIL WG to be interested, even though they have  
> never commented on this issue since the time it was raised? Were any  
> of the people expressing this sentiment members of SMIL WG?

My impression is that issue 10 was mostly about syntax (matching
up attribute names) and that most of the mismatches are gone now,
and that issue 9, video-synchronization, was about enriching
the synchronization semantics of <video>, which some members
of the SMIL WG seem interested in.

Something new (to me, at least) that came up in the call was
something about mechanisms provided by <object param=...> that
don't seem to be provided by <video>. I hope somebody sends
mail about that soon.

I don't have a strong opinion about where to track these details,
but I have trained my head a little bit to track them under
issue-9, so that's easiest for me.

Meanwhile, the relevant action (Mike to check with Dick...)
is tracked under issue-10. Go figure.

> As you can see, it's incredibly hard to infer the reasoning from the  
> minutes alone.

Then the minutes do a pretty good job of representing the discussion.
I had a hard time following too.

>  If we had a recording or full transcript, maybe I could  
> better determine what was said. Failing that, I'd like to ask someone  
> to give the reasoning by email, Otherwise, I propose to close this  
> issue next Thursday (since there has already been more than a week's  
> worth of discussion time.
> Regards,
> Maciej
> * - Regrettably I was unable to attend due to only waking up halfway  
> through it.
> [1]
Dan Connolly, W3C
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 14:34:41 UTC