Add FO Council proposed edits #84
Conversation
index.html
Outdated
| <ul> | ||
| <li>Presentation implementation</li> | ||
| <li>Content</li> | ||
| <li>Content producing implementation</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion from the TTWG call 2022-11-25 that an acceptable alternative would be "Content implementation" - @rhiaro please could you confirm if this it the case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Content implementation" strikes me as ambiguous—it could be interpreted to include hand-written content, which AIUI the council was trying to prevent with the proposed wording.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code is hand-written as well. I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(to be clear, my above comment, and this, are with my Apple AC rep hat on, and no other.)
@palemieux the distinction is that a piece of code that generates content would count but human-written content would not. I'm unsure how to be more clear.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hober I'd discussed with the WG on a call on 11/24 that "content implementation" would mean content produced by some form of authoring tool in their context, so including the word "producing" in here wouldn't be necessary. Are you okay with that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm going to go ahead and assume silence is assent, and remove the word "producing".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm going to go ahead and assume silence is assent, and remove the word "producing".
No, silence just means I didn't see the ping in my firehose of GitHub notifications.
I still think "content implementation" is too ambiguous.
andreastai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The changes look acceptable to me. It may be good to check that the objector and the TTWG have the same understanding of these changes.
|
LGTM. |
|
The Timed Text Working Group just discussed The full IRC log of that discussion<nigel> Topic: Rechartering Formal Objection Council and CfC conclusion<nigel> github: https://github.com//pull/84 <nigel> Nigel: I haven't received any objections, and some folk have said it looks good. <nigel> .. Gary, Atsushi, have you received any objections? <nigel> Gary: No <nigel> Atsushi: No <nigel> Nigel: There are 2 unresolved conversations on the pull request. <nigel> .. The first is about changing "Content producing implementation" to "Content implementation" <nigel> .. as mentioned by Amy last time. <nigel> .. 5 days ago Amy asked Tess if she'd be okay with removing "producing" and there's no answer. <nigel> .. Are we now in limbo?! <nigel> .. Any preferences for what we do here? <nigel> Gary: What would be the next step after we merge? <nigel> Atsushi: I believe this scenario should be the first case in FO Council so I'm not quite sure what we should <nigel> .. or can do here, but I believe the best way is to continue the conversation with the FO Council. <nigel> .. As far as I can tell, all of the FO Council decided to accept or deny, so to be honest I believe this <nigel> .. conversation should be a good input to the W3C Process on FO Council matters. <nigel> .. I have no idea for the best option here. <cpn> scribe+ cpn <cpn> Nigel: I think, if we've reflected on the FO council proposal and accepted, that should be the end of the matter. <cpn> ... So the next step should be to approve the charter and move on. I don't see scope in the Process for further argument or discussion <cpn> Atsushi: I would believe so <cpn> q+ <nigel> Chris: The concern I have here is that the FO Council proposed a wording change and then Tess <nigel> .. is saying she doesn't like the word "producing" so she's in disagreement with the Council. <nigel> Gary: We don't know that. <nigel> Nigel: I think it's slightly the other way round: Tess wanted the word "producing" and the Chair of the FO Council <nigel> .. proposed removing it. <nigel> .. What I'd like to do here is what the Chair of the FO Council said, and remove the word "producing". <nigel> Chris: Oh I see, I got it. And there's no reply from Tess yet. <cpn> ack cpn <cpn> Nigel: The other conversation is about the "for example" using conformance language. I've changed "MAY" to "may" as Amy suggested, and she hasn't objected <cpn> ... So I'll go ahead and resolve that conversation <cpn> ... We now have all conversations resolved. Does anyone on the call have anything to say about the change from "content producing implementation" to "content implementation"? <cpn> (no replies) <cpn> Nigel: So let's take a WG decision, the CfC has run its course, and merge the PR. The next stage is to email Atsushi and Amy to say we believe the charter is good to go, following the objection review process <cpn> Gary: Sounds good <cpn> Atsushi: I agree <nigel> DECISION: Merge the pull request and Chair(s) to email team and FO Council Chair with status update. |
CC @rhiaro
Represents the changes provided at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2022Nov/0008.html
Preview | Diff