Re: [webvtt] Spec editing

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/09/2015 10:02, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> On 24/09/2015 00:06, "singer@apple.com on behalf of David Singer"
>>> <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I’m fine with
>>>>* moving to more modern pub tools (Echidna)
>>>>* using Github issues rather than Bugzilla (even though I find github
>>>>issues/bug/conversations much harder to follow)
>>>>* moving to github and away from e.g. CVS
>>>>
>>>>It does seem…odd…to be in the whatwg part of github and not the general
>>>>W3C part.  Not sure I follow this.
>>>
>>> +1. It's confusing and unhelpful.
>>
>>I am no longer one of the editors, but I definitely support hosting
>>WebVTT at the WHATWG. Both because of saner infrastructure (the
>>dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/ setup involved PhantomJS and CVS on my
>>private VPS)
>
> A github/w3c infrastructure would be fine also, right?

Yes, I'm sure that could have been made to work.

>> and because the text track model which WebVTT extends is
>>part of HTML, maintained by the WHATWG.
>
> Irrelevant in my opinion. There are many HTML extensions managed by a
> variety of groups. If WHATWG thinks they need to control/manage/maintain
> every extension to HTML then they will be a bottleneck. Better to target
> specific work in specific groups, like this one.

I think that this group will continue to operate as usual.

At the end of the day, we needed to move away from dev.w3.org, and
hosting at the WHATWG is just fine. I can't really see that there
would be any genuine confusion about how to contribute once everything
is in order.

Philip

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 10:29:29 UTC