- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:48:05 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 24, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 02:49 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/9 > [...] >> 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. Have they ever said so? The only person I know of to ever express an interest in adding media synchronization to HTML5 <video> was Chris Wilson. And he didn't so much express an interest as worry that <video> may fail without it. If SMIL WG is indeed interested in this then we can leave the issue open pending a proposal. Or at least pending clarification whether they care about this. > > 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. Me too! I can't think of a reason <object param=...> would be needed, since that is a mechanism for sending extra parameters to plugins, but HTML5 video is not plugin based and as far as I know has no need for this. But perhaps there are use cases I'm not thinking of. I think someone said that SMIL <video> uses <param> tags, so it would fall under ISSUE-10 syntactic alignment, to consider this change. That being said, adding <param> support was not part of the SMIL WG's old recommendation. > 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. Yes, I'm expecting feedback based on ISSUE-10. Based on this, let's keep ISSUE-9 open until we get a clear answer from SMIL WG on it. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 20:48:46 UTC