- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 17:49:52 -0400
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- CC: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "'Geoff Freed'" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>, "'Edward O'Connor'" <hober0@gmail.com>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On 05/06/2010 05:25 PM, John Foliot wrote: > > Continue to expect significant and vocal opposition to this newly > re-invented Time-stamp wheel, which apparently sprang to life earlier this > week from the editor of the WHAT WG, as a complete and total surprise to > Media Captioning experts and Accessibility specialists of all stripes within > the W3C (such as Geoff, who's years of involvement within NCAM/WGBH - the > 'inventors' of captioning for television "video media" - carries significant > weight, research and experience when it comes to understanding both user > requirements, as well as an understanding of implementation issues). I said this in the telecon a few hours ago, and I will say it again: by any chance is this opposition going to take any actionable form, such as a bug report? If you want this section removed, a bug report is the right next step. If you expect this to be escalated, a bug report is still the right next step. If if you wish to prevent a heartbeat document going to go out with the existing WebSRT section in it, a bug report is still the right next step. If you want the decision policy to be changed to prevent such additions from occurring without prior discussion, I will maintain that writing a bug report on this specific WebSRT section still the right next step. I find that it is much more effective to discuss the need for change based on tangible problems that actually occurred rather than hypothetical worst case scenarios. > JF - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 21:50:31 UTC