Re: Timed tracks

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 05/12/2010 04:01 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/12/2010 02:37 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, I'm happy to keep the work on WebSRT in the
>>>> WhatWG working group. We can always submit it to the W3C once its a
>>>> more stable proposal. That would seem allow us to work on the
>>>> technical aspects of the spec in parallel with solving the complex
>>>> question of which working group should handle it.
>>>
>>> Jonas, I encourage you to review the reasons why this section was removed
>>> from the HTML5 spec, in the editor's own words:
>>>
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0197.html
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010May/0099.html
>>
>> I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said? Could you elaborate
>> more in detail what you think I'm missing?
>
> I did not suggest that you contradicted what Ian said.
>
> That being said, I do believe that you embellished.

Ok, I didn't understand your email at all, so it was a guess that you
thought that I was contradicting Ian. I still don't understand what
you felt that I did wrong. Or indeed if you did feel that I did
anything wrong.

> My claim was that if Ian does not want feedback, then he shouldn't publish
> it inside the HTML5 draft itself. This statement had nothing to do with any
> "complex question" other than whether or not feedback was desired at this
> point.

I agree that WebSRT went in to the W3C copy before it should have. I
don't in fact believe that it should go into either the W3C or WhatWG
copy at all. I prefer to keep it as a separate spec.

> Beyond that, there is an uncomfortable split between the WHATWG and the W3C.
> Bringing that non-technical subject up in the context of public-html is
> frankly non-productive.
>
> I happen to believe that the WHATWG and W3C can cooperate.  If and when this
> material is deemed ready to receive feedback, I will promise to assist in
> finding the venue at the W3C that maximizes the amount of technical review
> this document receives.

I didn't mean to add any whatwg/w3c controversy. It is clear to me
that there is much less process involved in getting a new document
published in WhatWG. Especially in this situations where it's unclear
which WG or TF should handle it, and where there are similar specs
already being published by W3C.

So while we are figuring this out, it seems like the easiest way to
move forward with technical work, is to do that work on the WhatWG
list.

I suggested the same thing while we were in the middle of the whole
controversy about various microdata vocabularies (i.e. not the format
itself, but 3 or so vocabularies that were in the HTML5 drafts a while
agoe). I believe this saved a lot of people significant time by
removing discussions about if/how/when/where those should be handled
within W3C.

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 23:20:41 UTC