On Friday 2015-09-11 00:46 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> The HTML WG has historically has contained so much noise that next to
> all productive contributors has left the group, leading to the being
> unable to create almost any useful contributions to HTML5. This has
> been such a big problem that
On Friday 2015-09-11 09:43 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> It seems the two hours are up, but I wanted to ask a question anyway.
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:53 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > I'm still considering between two different endings:
> >
> > ...
>
> Note that they are already active
On 09/11/2015 04:53 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 2015-09-08 17:33 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote:
Follow-up on this, since we now have two days remaining to respond to these
proposed charters.
If you still have strong opinions about the proposed Web Platform and Timed
Media Working Groups ch
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> On 09/10/2015 06:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here,
>> > then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we
>> > should do.
>> >
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with Jonas that
It seems the two hours are up, but I wanted to ask a question anyway.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:53 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> I'm still considering between two different endings:
>
> ...
Note that they are already actively ignoring the WHATWG.
> =
>
> One of the major problems in reaching
On Tuesday 2015-09-08 17:33 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> Follow-up on this, since we now have two days remaining to respond to these
> proposed charters.
>
> If you still have strong opinions about the proposed Web Platform and Timed
> Media Working Groups charters, please reply within 24 hours so
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Ms2ger wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/10/2015 06:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here,
> > then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we
> > should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/10/2015 06:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here,
> then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we
> should do.
>
FWIW, I agree with Jonas that this is a terrible idea.
If I am the only one that wants to put in a formal objection here,
then I'll let it go and go with whatever everyone else think we should
do.
/ Jonas
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:22 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM
On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
> >> >
> >> > Web
On Wednesday 2015-09-09 08:49 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Let me put it this way, how would you feel about integrating the HTML
> WG into the W3C Style WG?
If the HTML part of the WG were using asynchronous decision making
on a separate mailing list, I don't think it would be a big deal.
(It wou
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:16 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>
On Tuesday 2015-09-08 23:25 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> >> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
> >> >
> >> > Web
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> From everything I've seen, I don't expect much work around HTML beyond
> taking/merging bugfixes. I'm hoping with the new license that if W3C makes
> its own bugfixes that we find a way of propagating those bugfixes to WHATWG
> HTML as well.
F
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
>> >
>> > Web Platform Working Group:
>> > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platfo
Follow-up on this, since we now have two days remaining to respond to these
proposed charters.
If you still have strong opinions about the proposed Web Platform and Timed
Media Working Groups charters, please reply within 24 hours so we have the
opportunity to integrate your opinions into Mozilla'
On 08/15/2015 10:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
Web Platform Working Group:
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.h
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
>
> Web Platform Working Group:
> http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html
This charter doesn't mention the WHATW
Hi, DBaron,
I would like to support the creation of Timed Media Working Group. Because
Media Capture is one of other deliverables, I would like to put the work[1]
to this working group. Thanks.
[1]: http://chiahungtai.github.io/mediacapture-worker/
BR,
CTai
2015-08-10 2:59 GMT+08:00 L. David Ba
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:49 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> I guess I have mixed feelings about that. It's advantageous to have
> WHATWG specifications published under the W3C patent policy by this
> working group, though that doesn't require technical work happening
> in W3C.
For most specificatio
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
>
> Web Platform Working Group:
> http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html
...
>
> The Web Platform Working Group
On Monday 2015-08-10 12:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> We should probably also voice opposition to HTML Imports in its
> current form.
What's the rationale for opposing it?
-David
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla htt
On Monday 2015-08-10 12:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > Web Platform Working Group:
> > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
> >
> > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> > say as part of
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> Web Platform Working Group:
> http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
>
> Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> say as part of this charter review.
Jeff Jaffe told me at one point that Mozilla is n
On 09/08/15 19:59, L. David Baron wrote:
> The Timed Media WG splits some of the media work that was happening
> in HTML (MSE, EME) into a separate group.
Do we see a risk here that this group will become captured by the
promoters of DRM, more than was possible when it was done in the HTML WG?
Ge
The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
Web Platform Working Group:
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html
Timed Media Working Group
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/timed-media-wg.html
https://lists.w3.org/Ar
26 matches
Mail list logo
