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: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:36:21 +0000
To: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>, "'Timed Text Working Group'" <public-tt@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D0700402.1526F%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
On 24/10/2014 12:38, "Michael Dolan" <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:

>I agree a TTML1SE erratum to remove Appendix C is also appropriate (maybe
>not what you had in mind though :-)

Indeed not - in fact that appears to be against the spirit of [1] and [2]:

[1] Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Spec
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype2014.html

[2] Steps for Transition to Candidate Recommendation
http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transition

s2014.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions2014.xsl&docstatus=

cr-tr

The steer from those documents is that the Media Type registration should
be a normative part of the Recommendation.

I don't understand how this approach is supposed to deal with multiple
versions and updates of the same Recommendation over time, that may all
want to use the same MIME type registration. This is one for Philippe to
answer, I think, as the maintainer of [1].


Plus, I see that in [3], section 5.5 Change Procedure: "When review is
required, a change request may be denied if it renders entities that were
valid under the previous definition invalid under the new definition."
which helps with our understanding of how to manage the existing profile
parameter on application/ttml+xml when we do come to make a change.

[3] MIME Registration Procedures http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp13


Nigel




>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nigel Megitt [mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk]
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 4:19 AM
>To: Michael Dolan; 'Timed Text Working Group'
>Subject: Re: ACTION-341: Check with the mpeg folk if a wg note would be
>acceptable.
>
>Mike,
>
>It looks to me like any in-place update to the IANA registration would
>result in an invalidation of Annex C of TTML1SE "Media Type Registration"
>which is why I included option 3 to publish an erratum to TTML1SE.
>
>Your suggestion is certainly appealing from a 'minimal change'
>perspective.
>
>Nigel
>
>
>On 24/10/2014 11:27, "Michael Dolan" <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:
>
>>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 12:36:54 UTC

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