W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-texttracks@w3.org > October 2018

Re: The road ahead for the VTT Candidate Rec

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 05:51:56 +0930
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mAsK6wxFs87sxY6E2kkXBVaQ1dUbCUBvHgjbw1akq6Tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>, public-texttracks@w3.org, Gary Katsevman <me@gkatsev.com>
Hi David,

I don't know where the view that the spec will never reach
interoperability comes from. Not all activities are taking place in
the TTWG for WebVTT.

We just had our annual FOMS meeting and we have Gary on board as a new
editor of the WebVTT spec. Gary gave a status update on the
implementation of the WebVTT features and their interoperability based
on the Web Platform Tests (WPT).
http://slides.com/gkatsev/wpt-webvtt#/

We discussed with browsers that an interoperable implementation is
required. Implementers from Mozilla, Apple and Google were present and
agreed to move forward with implementations. There were some
committments made and there were many bugs registered.

I can't speak for Gary, but I believe it's Gary's goal to take the
interoperability report forward.
Many test are already green: http://slides.com/gkatsev/wpt-webvtt#/2/4 .

At FOMS, video player vendors reconfirmed that they would like to see
the WebVTT CR implemented by all browsers. They are already using the
Apple implementation which is regarded as the "gold standard" of
WebVTT implementation. The second best implementation is in VLC,
though it's not included in the WPT list.

Is there any way that the W3C can send out an implementation
call-to-action to browser vendors to support this effort? It's a
matter of prioritisation of accessibility implementation by browsers
that is now holding back progress. We're particularly concerned about
those browser that were not present at FOMS.

Kind Regards,
Silvia.


On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:33 PM David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
> My perception (and that of others too) is that there is no-one who is willing to do the work to document VTT interoperability and the CR exit criteria, and that we might still have trouble proving implementability of every feature.
>
> Under these circumstances I think we should not prolong the fiction that we’ll emerge from CR into Rec status, but instead do what the process requires, publish the CR as a WG note, and also keep the CG alive to keep the living standard.
>
> What do others think?
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
Received on Monday, 22 October 2018 20:22:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 October 2018 20:22:31 UTC