- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:27:01 +1100
- To: Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>
- Cc: "public-inbandtracks@w3.org" <public-inbandtracks@w3.org>, Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 2, 2014, at 13:37, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 3 Nov 2014 02:29, "Bob Lund" <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/2/14, 8:04 AM, "Cyril Concolato" >> <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: >> >> >Le 02/11/2014 12:05, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : >> >> Works for me. It think it will clarify the language. >> >Thanks Silvia. A few additional points for the rest of the group >> >(because you probably know them). >> > >> >The CG spec was briefly discussed at the end of the HTML WG's meeting at >> >TPAC. I basically indicated that the spec was there, reminded its >> >intent, that it needed review and I invited anyone to participate and in >> >particular browser vendors. I asked the question of which wording we >> >should use. >> > >> >It was pointed out that the HTML5 REC references our spec (!) in an >> >informative view, so we can do whatever we want. >> >> If the WG is OK with normative language in the sourcing spec then I think >> that is a good idea. > > The HTML WG? > > That is what Cyril said above. Yes, I think they don't mind what language we use. I think for the HTML spec it's just about whether this is a normative or informative reference. Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2014 23:27:50 UTC