Re: audio logotypes

I think it's basically something along the lines of: "please review
and tell us whether it's sane, also please let us know what a useful
distinction between confusing and unconfusing audio logotypes is --
speech vs music, or something else?"
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>





On 2008-03-28 11:54:06 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:
> From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
> To: "Thomas Roessler <tlr" <tlr@w3.org>
> Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:54:06 -0400
> Subject: Re: audio logotypes
> List-Id: <public-wsc-wg.w3.org>
> X-Spam-Level: 
> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
> 	public-wsc-wg-request@listhub.w3.org designates 128.30.52.56 as permitted sender)
> 	smtp.mail=public-wsc-wg-request@listhub.w3.org
> Archived-At:
> 	<http://www.w3.org/mid/OFD0B32A37.636E8DAC-ON8525741A.005750B0-8525741A.005759CA@LocalDo
> 	main>
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.6
> 
> > On February 20, we discussed [1] audio logotypes, in particular a
> > proposal for change from Tim Hahn in [2].  There seemed to be some
> > consensus that Tim's proposal was a sane one to recommend, even
> > though no action or resolution was minuted.
> 
> > I've taken Tim's material on user agent, but not actually added it
> > to the authoring best practices -- instead, it's merged with a
> > requirement on the playback of audiotypes that had weirdly made it
> > into the identity signal section, and moved into the overall
> > logotype section [3].
> 
> > From the minutes [1], it also seems like we were planning to get
> > back to the protocols and formats working group about this part.
> 
> > Mez, are you going to do that through the hypertext coordination
> > group?
> 
> > 1. http://www.w3.org/2008/02/20-wsc-minutes.html#item09
> > 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Feb/0021.html
> > 3. http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#sec-logotypes
> 
> If someone can craft the Issue clearly, I'll be glad to.
> 
>

Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 16:11:22 UTC