Re: edited TTWG draft charter, VTT?

All except for Microsoft. This whole effort is to get Microsoft on board,
from where I stand.

Kind regards,
Silvia.

On Tue., 27 Mar. 2018, 6:32 am David Ronca, <dronca@netflix.com> wrote:

> > I think that a label from the W3C (“Rec.”) may be not that important to
> them.
>
> Then the issue is solved, is it not?
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:31 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:20 , David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I don’t think it very constructive to get into a comparison argument
>> of the two specifications.
>> >
>> > The only thing I am comparing is the level of support.  TTML2/IMSC2 has
>> broad industry support with many organizations willing to invest time and
>> money to move the work forward.  WebVTT does not.
>>
>> OK, you do want an unproductive discussion, so be it.
>>
>> VTT is supported in all major browsers; TTML is not, and probably never
>> will be.
>>
>> With the exception of Regions, the support for VTT is remarkably complete
>> and consistent. TTML dialects slide through the ’N implementatuins’
>> requirement because there are M>N candidate implementations, and for any
>> given feature, you can cherry-pick which implementations support it
>> correctly; so for any row in the table (row==feature) there are indeed 3
>> green check-marks — but there’s no solid consistent set of columns which
>> support the basic feature set interoperably. The amount of red, last time I
>> checked, was extraordinary.
>>
>> Yes, a lot of committees endorse TTML dialects — W3C, EBU, SMPTE, and so
>> on — but rather fewer engineers. The opposite is true for VTT.
>>
>> I have repeatedly asked where TTML is achieving ‘blind interoperability’
>> — where TTML-dialect files are being written without knowing or caring
>> which client will play them. This is tthe major function of a public
>> specification, and so far, I have not heard of a good answer. (Both the BBC
>> and Netflix’s use of TTML (iPlayer and the Netflix player) are effectively
>> closed ecosystems, where the player is provided by the same company as is
>> authoring the files.)
>>
>> > You should not expect those who are not committed to WebVTT to carry
>> the water.
>>
>> I’m not.
>>
>> > Find one company willing to invest in the project at a level that
>> matters, and your problem is solved.
>>
>> They’ve implemented and moved on, and I think that a label from the W3C
>> (“Rec.”) may be not that important to them.
>>
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:09 PM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:
>> > I don’t think it very constructive to get into a comparison argument of
>> the two specifications. Honestly, they both have problems.
>> >
>> > The investment in the many implementations of VTT, including in
>> browsers, happened years ago, it’s true. There are open-source,
>> browser-based, standalone, polyfill and translation implementations. In
>> fact, one problem is that people don’t see a need to be involved in formal
>> processes after the time when it was all implemented; they’ve implemented
>> and moved on.
>> >
>> > Can we drop this “your spec. is X” line of discussion? I don’t see it
>> yielding any useful insights.
>> >
>> > > On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:04 , David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > thats what Im talking about: the time spent in this group on moving
>> WebVTT to CR has been negligible.
>> > >
>> > > We are all doing the W3C work as representatives of our
>> companies/organizations, and you should not be surprised that the
>> collective priorities of the participanting individuals and organizations
>> is where the time gets spent.  What should concern you is that there are no
>> companies/organizations or even individuals that believe that WebVTT is
>> important enough to invest time or money in the effort, nor to even join
>> the weekly calls.  How can WebVTT move forward with no one willing to do
>> the heavy lifting, and why should it?
>> > >
>> > > >  It has more implementations and complete features than the very
>> first time TTML went to CR
>> > >
>> > > What happened 10 years ago is not relevant.  TTML2 and IMSC2 will
>> have multiple independent implementations of every feature.  Included in
>> this is the open source TTT rendering project.  This is years of collective
>> effort and many millions of dollars invested by many organizations to see
>> this through.  Again going to my previous comments.  The WebVTT problem is
>> that there are no companies/organizations willing to make a similar
>> investment in WebVTT to complete the project.  It is not unreasonable,
>> therefore, to conclude that the collective industry has decided that WebVTT
>> is no longer relevant, and moved on.
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <
>> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Hi Pierre,
>> > >
>> > > thats what Im talking about: the time spent in this group on moving
>> > > WebVTT to CR has been negligible. All the effort has been done by
>> > > others outside the group. This group was tasked with a transition it
>> > > basically has no interest in.
>> > >
>> > > And about exit criteria: this is the first CR of WebVTT. It has more
>> > > implementations and complete features than the very first time TTML
>> > > went to CR - there's no way you can compare the status of the two
>> > > specifications at first CR and not see this difference.
>> > >
>> > > I am not angry about this - it is what it is. I'd just like the
>> > > decision to be made.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Silvia.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:26 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux
>> > > <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>> > > > Hi Silvia,
>> > > >
>> > > >> No other specification in the history of W3C has had to jump
>> through this many hoops to get to CR.
>> > > >
>> > > > As far as I know, WebVTT has been held to the same criteria for CR
>> > > > transition as IMSC (and TTML2).
>> > > >
>> > > > For better or for worse, the group has collectively spent multiple
>> > > > hundreds of man-hours closing
>> > > > issues leading up to the TTML2 CR.
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > >
>> > > > -- Pierre
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> > > > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> If there is a decision this group should take, it's to move webvtt
>> to CR. I
>> > > >> challenge you to get this done rather than throw another process
>> roadblock
>> > > >> at webvtt.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It's ready and has been for a long time. No other specification in
>> the
>> > > >> history of W3C has had to jump through this many hoops to get to
>> CR.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> All other groups of the W3C have deemed it ready for months of not
>> years.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Do everyone a favour and just decide to move it.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Kind regards,
>> > > >> Silvia.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue., 27 Mar. 2018, 3:16 am Nigel Megitt, <
>> nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Not so much an opinion as a restatement - at this point we seem
>> to be in
>> > > >>> the realm of process. We made the following resolution at TPAC
>> 2016 in
>> > > >>> Lisbon [1] as proposed by David Singer:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> > RESOLUTION: If we do not move WebVTT to CR in this Charter
>> period then
>> > > >>> >we will not include it in any new Charter.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-tt-minutes.html#resolution01
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> If there's another way to meet the needs of the folk who want to
>> progress
>> > > >>> VTT, then one way to satisfy that resolution is to close this
>> line of work
>> > > >>> in TTWG and remove it from the draft new Charter; I think the
>> Process
>> > > >>> requires publication as a WG Note in this event. I assume that
>> this does
>> > > >>> not preclude taking it up again in another WG or other forum.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I can't actually see any other ways to satisfy the resolution -
>> are there
>> > > >>> any?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Otherwise we would need to make a new different decision very
>> quickly (and
>> > > >>> our Decision Policy review period for any decision made now
>> expires after
>> > > >>> the end of the current Charter, so time is not in favour); before
>> doing
>> > > >>> that I would ideally like to see some evidence that something has
>> changed
>> > > >>> to warrant us revisiting it.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> For tracking purposes, I raised
>> > > >>> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/issues/21 on Thursday
>> 22nd
>> > > >>> March.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Nigel
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On 23/03/2018, 17:21, "David Singer" <singer@mac.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> >I¹m in debate with Silvia over the progression of VTT.  Do
>> others have
>> > > >>> >opinions?
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >With WhatWG on a firmer footing, much of the original motivation
>> to do a
>> > > >>> >Rec. has evaporated, and at this point looks like a lot of busy
>> work to
>> > > >>> >little reward. Are there people who see it differently?
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >> On Mar 23, 2018, at 3:16 , Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >> Hi,
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >> I have edited the TTWG draft charter with the changes agreed
>> during our
>> > > >>> >>TTWG telecon.
>> > > >>> >> Please review the draft charter
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >>
>> https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/Draft-2018-TTWG-Charter.html
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >> Deadline is Monday midnight US coast. I will send the charter
>> on
>> > > >>> >>tuesday to W3M for approval, and will request a charter
>> extension.
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >> Thierry
>> > > >>> >>
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >David Singer
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >singer@mac.com
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > David Singer
>> >
>> > singer@mac.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>
>>
>