W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > October 2014

RE: ACTION-341: Check with the mpeg folk if a wg note would be acceptable.

From: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:27:48 -0700
To: "'Timed Text Working Group'" <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014001cfef75$2e661d90$8b3258b0$@newtbt.com>
Nigel-

I defer to you on what there is or is not consensus on, but the proposal I made is a bit different than the first bullet.  Allow me to elaborate. I propose that we update the registration with IANA at [1] to:

a. add the new "processorProfiles" parameter;
b. remove the specifics from the citation back to TTML1 Appendix C; and
c. *not* publish a copy of it anywhere else (TTML2, WG Note, BBC business cards, ....).

The IANA registration can stand alone and be the authoritative media type definition.

[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/ttml+xml 

	Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Megitt [mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:33 AM
To: Michael Dolan; 'Timed Text Working Group'
Subject: Re: ACTION-341: Check with the mpeg folk if a wg note would be acceptable.

When I wrote "the mpeg folk" that was short-hand for "the mpeg folk in this working group", not all of MPEG. The other thread you mention was the result of my doing this action.

Summary of conclusions from that thread:

* We should re-register the media type with IANA, based on some syntax that we publish somewhere.
* We do not have consensus to record the syntax and new media registration in the TTML2 spec.
* We do not have consensus to record the syntax and new media registration in a new WG Note.

Without consensus on where to specify the parameter syntax definition and the media registration we can not proceed.

I believe the four logical possibilities for where to record the syntax and new registration are (before discounting any if they're not
acceptable):

1. In TTML2
2. As a new WG Note.
3. As an erratum to TTML1.
4. As a new Recommendation (which would need to be added to the Charter as a group deliverable).

To establish if we have a consensus for any of these options now please could you respond with a numerical vote for each option, from the scale -1 to +1 where:

  -1 = formal objection
   0 = no objection
  +1 = strong preference

Fractional values can be used to indicate preference levels but only -1 will be considered an objection, i.e. -0.9 is a strong preference against, but something that you could live with.

Nigel


On 24/10/2014 10:19, "Michael Dolan" <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:

>+1
>
>In addition, based on the other thread, there does not seem to be 
>consensus to do this via a WG Note anyway. Let's resolve that before we 
>start asking input from external bodies.
>
>	Mike
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:41 AM
>To: Timed Text Working Group
>Subject: Re: ACTION-341: Check with the mpeg folk if a wg note would be 
>acceptable.
>
>Um, where the TTWG defines it MIME sub-parameters is entirely up to the 
>TTWG.  At MPEG, we're merely going to say "the mime type of the 
>included resource, possibly with sub-parameters as defiend for it, goes here"
>
>
>On Oct 23, 2014, at 16:55 , Timed Text Working Group Issue Tracker 
><sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> ACTION-341: Check with the mpeg folk if a wg note would be acceptable.
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/341
>> 
>> Assigned to: Nigel Megitt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>David Singer
>Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 24 October 2014 10:28:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:18 UTC