See also: IRC log
<janina> agenda: this
<scribe> scribe: JF
Janina: still not have had a chance to address Action 99
Silvia: concerned that we cannot reach any agreement in the next 2 days - worried about schedule slippage
Discussion on the various option in http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API
> Discussion on the various option in http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API
(Concern about minuting and whether Zakim is capturing)
Silvia: we have not heard from Microsoft nor Mozilla
and Google isn't really active in the design phase
Janina: this is an importan issue for not only a11y, but also i18n
Silvia: for high-quality content producers as well
also the WebTV WG
many others have started to discuss this issue in other forums as well
really feels wrong to propose 3 or 4 CPs and then they might be trumped later by a better solution
feels it is premature at this time
Silvia: not up to this group to come up with the technical solution given the size and overlap of this issue
<judy_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
<judy_> it is feb 23 not feb 21
- Feb 23, 2011 - every issue has at least one Change Proposal
Consequences of missing this date: issues will be closed without prejudice and marked POSTPONED; can be reconsidered during LC or for a later version of HTML.
+1 to Judy
<silvia> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jan/0198.html <- Feb 21st on this issue
we have 7 possible change proposals, we should get them entered into the Issue queue so that we meet the stated deadline
<judy_> judy sees two different timelines at play -- seeing sylvia's note above, i think that the feb 21 day should be flexible by reasoned appeal, but there is a separate deadline for feb 23, that is not changeable.
<silvia> http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/1102-html-plh/#%284%29
<silvia> ^the timeline of the WG
judy: want to ensure that we have the best "package" by the 23 Feb.
[Discussion] concern about timelines and associate risk
Silvia: what has changed is that within the larger WG, many others have become involved in this discussion, and starting to realize the impact on their work
this is good
Janina: is it the same people, or is it new people getting involved
Silvia: a whole new group of people who have just realized how this will impact them
Judy: if we move this to another
group, we take it out of the advanced implementations of HTML5,
and give it to an interest group (Web and TV) that has a
timeline and horizon further out than what serves a11y
issues
... we should be realy convinced that the engineering to do
multi-track well should be deferred to another group
<Zakim> judy_, you wanted to wonder though what the implications are for addressing accessibility needs in html5 if this is moved to web and tv
Silvia: one way to look at this is that "Option 1" is needed (and requires JavaScript)
silvia, we seem to have lost you
<silvia> ups
Silvia: believes that Option 1 is the default solution, but concerned that if we propose other solutions, and the WG needs to pick one, concerned about the relationship with other WGs
Janina: believe we might be getting somewhere
perhaps we can determine with others if this is going to be problematic to them down the road
Silvia: not the easiest to implement, but the easiest to specify
actually one of the hardest to implement and is why the browsers are pushing back on it
Silvia: if we want 1 & 7, we need to ensure the JS API is the same
MPEG DASH file is being proposed for the Manifast file
we don't want more than one codec in each manifest file
for example
Judy: can we, by next week, develop a clear plan and a timeline for reaching something so that we can get it into the spec before lastCall
Silvia: likes the idea of setting up a road-map
Chairs have already said the wiki page needs to exploded out to 8 CPs
For next week we will work up some time lines for what we think it would take to specify multiple binary track support for HTML5
Janina: suggest that we move forward with a proposal,option 1, and then wait to see what others put forward
Judy: can we also try to confirm participation of others who should be on the call next week
rrrsagent, make minutes
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/asks for a re-paste of link please// Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Default Present: Judy, John_Foliot, +29374aaaa, Silvia Present: Judy John_Foliot +29374aaaa Silvia Got date from IRC log name: 16 Feb 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/16-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]