W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webtiming@w3.org > August 2015

[timingobject] new commits pushed by tidoust

From: François Daoust via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:04:53 +0000
To: public-webtiming@w3.org
Message-ID: <push-28433be18535b270f06fca165a3c93efdeb818ef-1439978691-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

The following commits were just pushed by tidoust to 
https://github.com/webtiming/timingobject:

* Minor editorial fixes

- Fixed definitions that ReSpec now reported as "duplicate".
- Properly closed heading before sequencing example
- Added missing spaces in a couple of algorithms
  by François Daoust
https://github.com/webtiming/timingobject/commit/1e05a70b2afd9aeda0ae1ed80f9684d677e6146e

* Simplified procedure to associate a timing text track with a timing 
object

If we drop the notion of "list of timing text tracks", it does not 
make sense
to talk about "old timing" and "new timing" in the algorithm.

By the way, I note that the "time marches on" algorithm refers to the 
list of
text tracks of a media element, so more changes would be required to 
apply it
directly to timing text track objects if we don't introduce a similar 
notion
for timing objects. Given that the "track marches on" procedure is 
left
underspecified at this stage, that's not a big deal.
  by François Daoust
https://github.com/webtiming/timingobject/commit/5e284fe2c7210c713c56aaf537c0b1c592d2c723

* Updated sequencing part to separate spec from implementation

While it's a good idea to reference the JavaScript implementation from
within a draft spec, the spec is not the right place to discuss a 
possible
approach for things that could be up for standardisation: it *is* a
standardisation proposal.

Also, the spec should not contain example code for the JavaScript
implementation since it is not entirely aligned with the interfaces
defined. I updated the example accordingly (using HTML5.1 DataCue 
objects).

I re-introduced the notion of "current sequencer" for timing text 
tracks
instead of "current timing source". I agree that the latter would be 
more
consistent with the section on media element, but that creates a 
namespace
issue as it is tied to "media elements" in this spec, so we need 
another
term (or we would need to define the concept of "current timing 
source" more
generically).
  by François Daoust
https://github.com/webtiming/timingobject/commit/28433be18535b270f06fca165a3c93efdeb818ef
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2015 10:04:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:25:14 UTC