RE: Timed tracks

Of course, because a specific kind of device or component
or agent is a source of legitimate use cases does not
imply that every aspect of the operation of the device
is in scope; otherwise we might be talking about voltage
regulators and the electrical properties of HDMI interfaces.

The fact that HTML is used in a wide variety of contexts is
a strong argument for modularity and separation of concerns,
not of leaving topics that *can* be orthogonal in scope.

And I think that's an issue that was resolved back in
February.

Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:38 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Henri Sivonen; Julian Reschke; Ian Hickson; Philippe Le Hegaret;
Edward O'Connor; public-html@w3.org; Anne van Kesteren
Subject: Re: Timed tracks

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

Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 05:22:08 UTC