W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > February 2003

Re: the scope of the problem

From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:49:24 -0800
Message-Id: <p05200e07ba707f9e9034@[10.169.91.126]>
To: jan.vandermeer@philips.com, public-tt@w3.org
Cc: public-tt-request@w3.org
At 15:38 +0100 2/12/03, jan.vandermeer@philips.com wrote:
>Hello Mike,
>
>Good to hear you here as well. I like your picture and your question.
>
>>After that, then what problem are we trying to solve, exactly?
>
>It is my understanding that the objective in the TTWG is to define 
>an "authoring solution" that can be used as input to the specific 
>formats for transport that you indicate in your pictures. In that 
>sense, the TTWG outcome should be orthogonal to these specific 
>formats.
>
>On the other hand it could be very useful to define certain profiles 
>for the TTWG outcome, to ensure that "mapping" to certain specific 
>formats is possible. For instance it may be possible to define one 
>"simple profile" for mapping to the formats used in ATSC, DVB and 
>DVD and a second "enhanced profile" for mapping to the 3GPP timed 
>text format (which has richer functionality than the first three 
>mentioned formats).
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jan van der Meer
>Philips
>

Jan is spot on.  My feeling is that we ought to be able to define 
something in w3c which represents a reasonably good set of 
functionality, which could be

a) made into a binary format inside mpeg-4, if they wanted to;
b) if profiled, made into the 3G format;
c) made into a streamed text format in RTP, if there were such;

I think we're all looking for an interchange syntax here from the w3c.
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:51:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:26 GMT