Re: Adopting the media accessibility requirements

On Oct 31, 2010, at 02:02, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

>> Traditionally I believe W3C "requirement" docs have been treated as
>> "legally binding". I.e. the specification had to implement the
>> requirements in order to ship. This might be the source of some of the
>> disconnect here.
> 
> Maybe it is possible to eliminate the word "requirement" from the doc,
> actually, and call it "Media Accessibility user and ecosystem Needs"
> or something similar.

It's not a matter of what it is called. It's a matter of what the content of the document says if the document gets some kind of Official status. It's now called "User Requirements" but it sure looks like it contains very prescriptive implementation requirements.

I suggest changing the content of the documents so that it looks like a collection of "user and ecosystem needs" that hasn't been vetted for the gravity of each need and doing so with such clarity that no reasonable or unreasonable person could read it as grounds for blocking HTML5 on the REC track if something asserted to be a "need" was left unsatisfied by the spec or hadn't been interoperably satisfied by two browsers.

Note that if make the HTML5 spec say that implementations must allow the user to adjust the stereophonic balance (aka. relocate in the audio field) one track independently of another and we don't have two browsers implementing that interoperably, either the spec can't progress or the feature can't stay in the spec as long as those impls. are missing.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 14:14:33 UTC