- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 17:42:04 -0400
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Me too. I am totally happy for people with bandwidth to spend time improving, and improving the documentation, of formats in use (like SRT). Whether that's WhatWG, Xiph, or an as-yet-to-be-formed WebSRT Enhancements and Verification Environment Working Group (WEaVE-WG) :-) Just don't hang it inside finishing HTML 5... On May 12, 2010, at 14:37 , Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote: >> # To me, your question seems totally irrelevant to this WG. >> # If the $99.99 device contains a Web browser, then yes. >> # If it doesn't contain a Web browser, the capabilities of >> # the device are not relevant to <video>. >> >> The working group is chartered to work on a definition of the >> Hypertext Markup Language and its related APIs, not on the >> definition of a "Web browser". >> >> A device which can parse conforming HTML, find appropriate >> <video> elements within it, and then play the video, >> with captions, is a perfectly acceptable use case for >> determining requirements for the HyperText Markup Language. > > For what it's worth, I'm happy to keep the work on WebSRT in the > WhatWG working group. We can always submit it to the W3C once its a > more stable proposal. That would seem allow us to work on the > technical aspects of the spec in parallel with solving the complex > question of which working group should handle it. > > / Jonas > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 21:42:40 UTC