- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 07 Feb 2003 16:30:54 -0800
- To: Brad Porter <brad@tellme.com>
- Cc: www-voice@w3.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Stuart Williams <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Scott McGlashan <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>
On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 11:59, Brad Porter wrote: > Dan, > > Hopefully you didn't intend your comments to sound as inflamatory as they might be interpreted. Hmm... yes, sorry to be curt. I'm typing with one good hand; broke my finger and had surgery earlier this week... > HTML and SMIL are in clear conflict on their use of the type attribute. Yes; HTML is right and SMIL is wrong. 1/2 ;-) Formats can't override protocols that carry them (nor can protocols screw with data formats. Dunno how SMIL got to be that way. I don't think it justifies the SGRS design, though reasonable people may disagree... > Other specifications do not make a clear statement either way. I have not seen a > clear statement from the TAG yet. I think maybe the TAG may look at this, but regardless, my comment stands. > I have seen substantial email threads debating this issue in different working groups without clear consensus. OK, but where we are right now is me asking you to change your spec or tell me why not, in technical terms. > As is documented in the comments, we did work to address this question with Martin. The working group did choose to follow the language and use from SMIL > for the reason that practically speaking not all web servers return the right MIME type for the content. I see. Well, that is a technical justification; I appreciate that, but... > If you are not satisfied with the details provided > in the response, Looking over http://www.w3.org/2002/06/speech-grammar-comments.html#GC09-20 in detail, no I'm not satisfied. I still think the spec should change. > we would certainly be happy to discuss it further. I'd like to study the test case. I'd appreciate a pointer, though perhaps I can find it myself. > > I personally would welcome the TAG addressing this issue and I would be very willing to participate in such a discussion. Meanwhile, as I said, my request/comment stands. > Brad > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 19:31:15 UTC