Re: The road ahead for the VTT Candidate Rec

In general I would rather see Recs, even if they are snapshots, than
relying solely on living standards, but of course only if they meet the
requirements for a Rec. However since we are unable to demonstrate that
WebVTT meets those requirements, and don't have any reason to expect that
we will be able to, then I support the proposal.

If our view is that the spec will never reach Rec, then it does raise
questions for the CG particularly about usage in the web platform - this
may be for another day, but it seems that we should consider promoting
that implementations get moved out of "native" code bases and into
polyfills instead, so as to be able to track a living standard better.

Nigel


On 22/10/2018, 10:02, "singer@apple.com on behalf of David Singer"
<singer@apple.com> wrote:

>My perception (and that of others too) is that there is no-one who is
>willing to do the work to document VTT interoperability and the CR exit
>criteria, and that we might still have trouble proving implementability
>of every feature.
>
>Under these circumstances I think we should not prolong the fiction that
>wešll emerge from CR into Rec status, but instead do what the process
>requires, publish the CR as a WG note, and also keep the CG alive to keep
>the living standard.
>
>What do others think?
>
>David Singer
>Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------

Received on Monday, 22 October 2018 09:17:41 UTC