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 <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > > I'm still considering between two different endings: > > > > ... > > Note that they are already actively ignoring the WHATWG.
I used: # The only part of this response that constitutes a formal objection is # having a reasonable explanation of the relationship between the working # group and the work happening at the WHATWG (rather than nearly ignoring # the existence of the WHATWG). However, many of the other issues issues # raised are serious concerns and we hope they will be properly # considered. > > ===== > > > > One of the major problems in reaching interoperability for media > > standards has been patent licensing of lower-level standards covering > > many lower-level media technologies. ... > > Was this included? Since you mentioned endings before you got to this. > This is also a problem of sorts with other work the W3C is doing, > where they charter work on high-level APIs without having sorted or > planning to sort out the protocol, e.g., the Presentation API. Yes. Those were the comments on the timed media charter, though. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
