This isn't a W3C document, is it? This isn't part of the HTML WG effort, either, is it?

(In reply to comment #1)
> This isn't a W3C document, is it? This isn't part of the HTML WG effort,
> either, is it?

As a co-chair, I will state that the WHATWG has permission to use the W3C hosted bugzilla for this purpose.

(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This isn't a W3C document, is it? This isn't part of the HTML WG effort,
> > either, is it?
> 
> As a co-chair, I will state that the WHATWG has permission to use the W3C
> hosted bugzilla for this purpose.

How then is a person supposed to know when a work is officially sanctioned as an HTML WG work, and when a work does not have this official sanctioning? Just saying the component is "other" doesn't change the fact that it is listed as a product of the HTML WG. In particular, linking it to an external document just adds to the confusion.

Is this a product of the HTML WG, or not? It shows up in queries as one. It shows in the front page of the HTML WG as a new bug that hasn't been resolved. 

I would assume if the W3C is generously sharing its bug facility with other organizations, they would at least do so in such a way that there is no assumption that this bug is part of an official work within the W3C.

(In reply to comment #3)
> 
> Is this a product of the HTML WG, or not?

Please refrain from posting topics unrelated to the original bug reported here.

Here is what I know about WebSRT:

WebSRT is specific to timed tracks. The Accessibility subgroup had a task to gather requirements for this functionality[1]. I believe the group is finished, but am not sure. 

In May, the HTML5 editor published his version of timed tracks, called WebSRT, within the HTML5 specification[2]. This generated a great deal of discussion, including a discussion about whether something like this even fits within the HTML WG charter[3]. The HTML5 editor removed it from the W3C copy of HTML5, but left it in the WhatWG version (one of those points of differences that is specifically related to this bug)[4]. In the meantime, the accessibility community has identified WebSRT as one of a set of candidates[5].

With the new Last Call priorities, Sylvia Pfeiffer expressed concern[6] specifically related to media accessibility. I don't believe she's been answered, but I do know that the accessibility group is interested in this bug, because of the ally keyword. 

Yet this bug links to an off-site, non-W3C document--a document that is, somehow, listed within the HTML WG product, but has never been proposed as a HTML WG document. 

You look at all of this together and you go...what? 

Has WebSRT been put forth as a proposed separate document and spec by Ian Hickson? Has the question about whether the HTML WG is chartered to cover this functionality been answered? How timely can any of this be managed, if non-bug related changes are, more or less, going to be frozen by October 1st?

I realize that the W3C has given permission for the WhatWG members to use the Bugzilla database. Can you see, though, how this bug entry showing up among the HTML WG bugs, could potentially cause some confusion? 


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0140.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0067.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0130.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0323.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0015.html

(In reply to comment #5)
> Here is what I know about WebSRT:

Please treat comment #3 above as a public warning per the Discussion Guidelines

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines

Continued attempts to use bug reports for topics unrelated to the original bug report will result in chair actions as specified by those guidelines.

In particular, please do not reply to this comment here.

And, yes, I have amended the DiscussionGuidelines and applied them retroactively.  If you feel this is inappropriate please feel free to consult with the other co-chairs, the W3C staff, the Interaction Domain Lead, or the COO.

I'll fix this when fixing bug 10320.

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Accepted
Change Description: dropped the voice identifier feature as a syntaxt construct separate from cue text (I'll readd it as markup in the cue text itself as discussed in bug 10320)
Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments.

Change won't show immediately due to pub issues.