- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:39:25 +0100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: public-media-fragment@w3.org, Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>
Dear Philip, > I don't see the issue of processing requirements (e.g. given by a > parsing algorithm) on the agenda, which was the email linked to. As a > potential implementor of MF this is the single most important issue, so > I hope it will be addressed soon. This was hidden in (Topic 4): * Question of MF URI validity by Philip: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Nov/0023.html ... but I agree this is of fundamental importance and should not be hidden in the Test Cases topic. In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Dec/0009.html I suggest to write a new section 5.1 that should address this issue. > Is it safe to assume that if an email is sent to the list the editor > will eventually do something (change the spec, ask for more input or > reject the idea) and send a reply by email? Absolutely! We are a number (hopefully not only me) that watch closely the list and make sure all comments are addressed and got a reply. But has humans sometimes fail, do not hesitate to re-issue a concern that you feel has not been properly addressed. In this case, I assume you refer to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Nov/0023.html . As ACTION, we need to revise the "Media Fragment Resolution and Processing general setup" which I suggest we write down in the section 5.1. . Further, you suggest we write down some pseudo-algorithm regarding the media fragment parsing. Yves has answered that this would mandate one implementation, potentially not the most effective one. We could also suggest one algorithm and make this section informative. I suggest we discuss that in today's telecon. I'm happy to hear your opinion on this list or on IRC. > I like this method, but if > you want spec bugs in a special bug tracker or similar please just point > me there and I will comply. No, we haven't setup bug tracker for this group. Watching the mailing list should be enough given the relatively small number of participants. > Also, do most of the actual discussions in this group happen by > teleconference? The mail traffic is 50% about teleconfs, so that's what > it seems like from the outside (I am a WG member, but an outsider to the > process so far). I agree that the mail traffic is completely irregular. There are sometimes some peaks with some discussion but sometimes the list is dormant. The group has not been active (apart Silvia :-) the last 2 months partially from my fault. Hopefully, the mails sent today will revive the discussion. > Not complaining, just asking. Thanks for the feedback. Best regards. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 09:40:26 UTC