- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:30:10 +0200
- To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Nigel Megitt" <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:24:54 +0200, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: >> As David said, the CG and the WHATWG is basically the same and has >> always >> >> been for WebVTT. WHATWG is also a W3C CG. Having the repo in the whatwg >> github organization just seemed like a more natural place if we host the >> editors' draft at webvtt.spec.whatwg.org. > > It's not my view that the CG and the WHATWG are basically the same, > though > I agree that many of the active participants are in both groups. I do not > think there's any particular need to host the editor's draft at > whatwg.org > - that should be a consequence of the decision on where to work on this > spec rather than a causal factor. The particular need given in the original message was that I didn't want to maintain Philip's custom webhook that was used to publish the spec in its current location. It's a weak argument, but it appeared that there were no objections in the CG to change the spec's URL. >> OK. Do I understand correctly that you do not want to stop using W3C >> bugzilla, at least for the Rec-track document? > > No, I consider the bugzilla and github issue tracking as both relating to > the CG work. The WG also maintains a Tracker product for issues against > the Rec track version, which is what I was referring to. > > FWIW I'm also happy with github issue tracking as a medium-long term > replacement for bugzilla. Ah OK, thank you for clarifying. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 07:29:42 UTC