Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing

[Olivier GENDRIN]

(+cc www-smil)

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@...> wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
>
> Since this issue was raised, there has not been significant interest in
> changing the attribute names on <video> and <audio> to match SMIL elements.
> I suggest we close this issue. Anyone who wants to make a technical case for
> changing one or more of the attributes would remain free to do so.

Did we recieved any advice from the smil team about this ?

--
Olivier G.
http://identi.ca/lespacedunmatin
http://www.lespacedunmatin.info/blog/

[Maciej Stachowiak]

On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:26 AM, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:

> (+cc www-smil)
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@...>  
> wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
>>
>> Since this issue was raised, there has not been significant  
>> interest in
>> changing the attribute names on <video> and <audio> to match SMIL  
>> elements.
>> I suggest we close this issue. Anyone who wants to make a technical  
>> case for
>> changing one or more of the attributes would remain free to do so.
>
> Did we recieved any advice from the smil team about this ?

We had this input from the SYMM WG on December, 2007: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0219.html

This linked to a detailed comparison, but there was apparently little  
interest in changing HTML5 <video> to be more like SMIL, since the  
message received no replies and there was no follow-up.

Regards,
Maciej

[Dan Connolly]

Taking silence as assent on this sort of thing is
tricky... I'm checking internally with the W3C staff,
but one thing I've forgotten to do in some other
cases is also check directly with the chairs and WGs.

Dick, Eric, would you please
(a) acknowledge receipt,
(b) let us know whether the SMIL WG is OK with this?

If you can't do them both in a few days, please do
(a) and estimate when you can do (b).

On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 02:41 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:26 AM, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:
>
> > (+cc www-smil)
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@...>  
> > wrote:
> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
> >>
> >> Since this issue was raised, there has not been significant  
> >> interest in
> >> changing the attribute names on <video> and <audio> to match SMIL  
> >> elements.
> >> I suggest we close this issue. Anyone who wants to make a technical  
> >> case for
> >> changing one or more of the attributes would remain free to do so.
> >
> > Did we recieved any advice from the smil team about this ?
>
> We had this input from the SYMM WG on December, 2007: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0219.html
>
> This linked to a detailed comparison, but there was apparently little  
> interest in changing HTML5 <video> to be more like SMIL, since the  
> message received no replies and there was no follow-up.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

[rubys]

Dan Connolly wrote:
> Taking silence as assent on this sort of thing is
> tricky... I'm checking internally with the W3C staff,
> but one thing I've forgotten to do in some other
> cases is also check directly with the chairs and WGs.

The real issue is that this (as well as other) issues have sat dormant
with no forward progress for a long period of time.

> Dick, Eric, would you please
> (a) acknowledge receipt,
> (b) let us know whether the SMIL WG is OK with this?
>
> If you can't do them both in a few days, please do
> (a) and estimate when you can do (b).

That's exactly what we need.  If this request attracts an owner and a
schedule to either close the issue or to identify tangible changes that
need to be taken to HTML5, then the issue will remain open.

- Sam Ruby

> On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 02:41 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:26 AM, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:
>>
>>> (+cc www-smil)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@...>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
>>>>
>>>> Since this issue was raised, there has not been significant  
>>>> interest in
>>>> changing the attribute names on <video> and <audio> to match SMIL  
>>>> elements.
>>>> I suggest we close this issue. Anyone who wants to make a technical  
>>>> case for
>>>> changing one or more of the attributes would remain free to do so.
>>> Did we recieved any advice from the smil team about this ?
>> We had this input from the SYMM WG on December, 2007: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0219.html
>>
>> This linked to a detailed comparison, but there was apparently little  
>> interest in changing HTML5 <video> to be more like SMIL, since the  
>> message received no replies and there was no follow-up.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>

[Maciej Stachowiak]

On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> Taking silence as assent on this sort of thing is
>> tricky... I'm checking internally with the W3C staff,
>> but one thing I've forgotten to do in some other
>> cases is also check directly with the chairs and WGs.
>
> The real issue is that this (as well as other) issues have sat  
> dormant with no forward progress for a long period of time.
>
>> Dick, Eric, would you please
>> (a) acknowledge receipt,
>> (b) let us know whether the SMIL WG is OK with this?
>> If you can't do them both in a few days, please do
>> (a) and estimate when you can do (b).
>
> That's exactly what we need.  If this request attracts an owner and  
> a schedule to either close the issue or to identify tangible changes  
> that need to be taken to HTML5, then the issue will remain open.

I've done a little more research on the technical details, and it  
looks like some of the <video> element attributes that were similar in  
purpose to SMIL but different in details, have now been removed from  
HTML5. In particular the start and end attributes are gone. Comment  
from the SMIL WG is of course still welcome, but I believe a great  
deal of the overlap and motive for alignment is gone.

Regards,
Maciej