- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:49:58 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
At 7:08 -0400 13/07/09, Sam Ruby wrote: > >At the present time, I am not aware of anybody actually pursuing an >alternative to what Ian has proposed in terms of required codecs. >Unless I can find an owner for Issue-7, my intent is to (eventually) >close it as resolved. Well, I am aware of people working on some of the issues around Ogg/Theora, I am aware of W3C staff member(s) who are looking at the situation, I have said several times I have and still am trying to pursue solutions when I can (though, I grant you, with nothing to report so far), so it's not quite true no-one is working on the problem. >>I have also posted several times that I believe we need a >>substantive discussion on media accessibility, and provided some >>suggestions. We cannot leave this area un-addressed. Arguing >>about the codec (a discussion which can be deferred without damage) >>and not about accessibility (a design that will take time, take >>experimentation, and take refinement) is not good use of our time, >>IMHO. > >This is a large group. Different people have different interests >and can work on different aspects. > Yes, but also other people can (and probably will, anyway) criticize for spending a lot of time on a discussion which was going nowhere, and not spending time on matters which we could have and should have worked on: and I see accessibility of media elements as one of those. We cannot force volunteers to do anything, but we can overall be critical of the results (or lack of them). -- David Singer Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 12:51:29 UTC