Re: ISSUE-194

Hi Ted & Silvia,

It seems to me that the two transcript attribute proposals are now much closer than our original starting point. They are intended to meet the same requirements and satisfy the same use cases, and have pretty similar syntax and usage. 

Currently the proposals at <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/ISSUE-194/TranscriptURL> and <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-194-2B> both propose a transcript attribute, one taking a URL, and the other taking a list of element IDs. However, neither provides direct rationale for why its form of the transcript attribute is different from the others. They focus more on why transcript support is useful at all, and on comparing to proposals no longer on the table.

I think it would improve both proposals if they gave rationale for why their form of the transcript attribute is better than the other.

It would be even better if we could reach consensus, given how close the two proposals now are, but I recognize that at some point we need to move on and make a decision if we do not have consensus.

Regards,
Maciej



On Jun 29, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Eric Carlson, John Foliot, Silvia Pfeiffer and I had a call today in
> which we attempted to resolve the remaining differences between our
> ISSUE-194 proposals. Unfortunately, we were unable to come to a
> consensus position. Given this, I will keep both of the following Change
> Proposals on the table for an eventual poll on ISSUE-194:
> 
>  Defer ISSUE-194 until HTML.next
>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-194-6
> 
>  Mint a transcript attribute for the programmatic association of
>  transcripts with media elements
>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-194-2B
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ted
>

Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 23:50:10 UTC