W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [profile] Profile spec title

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:03:07 +0100
To: "Masahito Kawamori" <masahito.kawamori@ties.itu.int>
Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v9c5bh0g6ugkrk@giuseppep-x220>
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:53:58 +0100, Masahito Kawamori  
<masahito.kawamori@ties.itu.int> wrote:
>>
>> As I see it we have the following main components:
>> 1. performance based profile: how to measure performances of some
>> technologies (e.g. CSS animations) and how to profile out support for  
>> such
>> technologies based on a minimal performance requirement.
>> 2. content adaptation: which technologies needs to be supported in  
>> order to
>> enable applications that can easily self adapt to the widest range of
>> devices (tablets, PCs, TVs, Blueray discs, etc). This cover thing like  
>> CSS
>> media queries but also discussion about different input paradigms  
>> (remote
>> control, pointer based, touch)
>> 3. Formats: are there widely adopted formats (for video, audio, images)  
>> that
>> you would need to support to be interoperable?
>> 4. Protocols and platform capabilities: I do I get access to the needed
>> information from the underlying protocols (and do I need to get access  
>> to
>> them?). This covers things like adaptive streaming, drm, metadata  
>> associated
>> with the stream.
>>
>> So in short I think we have 50% performance related requirements (so  
>> mostly
>> valid for ce devices) and 50% functional requirements (applicable to all
>> devices)
>>
>
> [MK] I am sorry Giuseppe. I don't understand. You mentioned four
> components and only one of them mentions performance. Where did you
> get the 50%?  Is it 25%, maybe?
>
well I considered the component 1 as bigger ;)
Anyway numbers are not important here, sorry for the confusion

>
>> Given the variety of opinions, I still think the provisional  
>> title+subtitle
>> we have now is good.
>
> [MK] The problem is, we don't have "the"  title+subtitle,

I was referring to the title on the draft
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html

"Web and TV profile"
Guidelines for integration of interactive TV services in a Browser-based  
environment

> but we had
> two that you proposed. There was the third, proposed by me.

yep bu given the discussion it seems that there are problems with all  
these 3 so I was suggesting to keep the one we have (written above)

> Which one do you propose as the one that captures the opinions?
The current one probably doesn't capture the opinions but is also generic  
in a way that leave to the rest of the document to clarify in details what  
we mean.

> And
> by the way, none of the four components you mentioned above
> specifically refers to "interactive video services".  Why do you think
> this summarizes the four components you mention?
>

All the components are used to create interactive video services. The term  
interactive video services was to a way to define something more generic  
than TV that could include also thing like web based video portals.

>> The only alternative to "TV" I can come up with to reflect our  
>> community is
>> "Commercial Video Services".
>
> [MK] Again, I don't quite understand your point. Do you mean the
> profile excludes "public video services"?  Does "TV", in your
> rephrasing, exclude BBC or EBU?
>
no, this is not my intention of course. I mean commercial in a broad sense  
(as compared to non professional video services)

> I thought we, in the olden days of 2010 and at the first workshop in
> Tokyo, started out with the idea that "TV" does not any more mean just
> "video" services. c.f.  <http://www.w3.org/2010/09/web-on-tv/>.
>

That is why I prefer to keep the title as is.
Even if TV may be confusing we are using it already and hopefully the  
masse that is not only about TV sets is now out there.

Could we agree to keep the current title and go back to it (if needed)  
once the scope is agreed and we have started some significant work on the  
document itself?

/g

> But then again, if the primary target of this IG has already been
> restricted enough, and the video service with interactivity is what we
> need to profile (first), then we can have "Web and TV Profile--
> Guidelines for integration of interactive video services in a
> browser-based environment", but also "Web and TV Profile-- Guidelines
> for integration of web-technologies for resource limited devices". We
> may need to create other profiles, if it is necessary.
>
> Cheers
>
> Masahito
>
>
>> But I think that making it clear in the text (rather than in the title)
>> would be enough.
>>
>>
>> /g
>>
>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Masahito
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Scott Wilson
>>> <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Feb 2012, at 10:25, Masahito Kawamori wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Giuseppe, all
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Giuseppe Pascale  
>>>>> <giuseppep@opera.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having read all the comments so far I still think the best  
>>>>>> compromise
>>>>>> between different opinions is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Web and TV profile"
>>>>>> Guidelines for integration of interactive video services in a
>>>>>> browser-based
>>>>>> environment
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree.  (but then again, the question may remain, "hasn't that been
>>>>> the intention of HTML5 <video>?". Well, it is ok for the time being,
>>>>> as a straw man, at least.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes... for me the spec is more like a HTML5 profile for web  
>>>> applications
>>>> on CE devices than anything to do with video services.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> possible variation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "WebTV profile"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guidelines for integration of interactive video services in a
>>>>>> browser-based
>>>>>> environment
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would not probably work, as pointed out by Yusuke.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Masahito
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> /g
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> mav
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Jan Lindquist wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> The profile is not only about HTML5 but other W3c standards so it
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be misleading to have HTML5 in the title. In the spirit of the IG  
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> "web and TV profile". The name of the profile is not as critical  
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> knowing
>>>>>>>> the breadth of the areas it should cover. This profile may live  
>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>> and it in the context of the industry attempt to influence the  
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> in W3C
>>>>>>>> with a clear list of specs that are being used and how they may be
>>>>>>>> used. It
>>>>>>>> will become a reference point by other standard groups. By using  
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> name as the IG it can help see the relationship.
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> JanL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Vickers, Mark [mailto:Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: den 7 februari 2012 15:24
>>>>>>>>> To: Giuseppe Pascale
>>>>>>>>> Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [profile] Profile spec title
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about "HTML5 Video Services Profile"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 7, 2012, at 3:28 AM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:26:40 +0100, Vickers, Mark
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Title: The goal for me is a profile of HTML5 for video
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> services. There are two differences with "Web&TV Profile".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - I want to include HTML5 in the title because this is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HTML5-related
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and HTM5-centric
>>>>>>>>>>> - I don't like including "TV". This continues to cause
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> confusion. It is clearer to describe an HTML5 profile for
>>>>>>>>> video services.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't have strong opinions on the title but I would note
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the following:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - A title should be short ( the subtitle explains a bit
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> more what we are doing).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - I've tried to use the word "TV services" in the subtitle that  
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> hopefully a bit less confusing (or maybe not?). I have defined  
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> term as
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "For the purposes of this document a TV service is a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> commercial video service that may include elements of
>>>>>>>>> interactivity and that provides a coherent user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - while this profile is html5 based this is not only about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> html5. I'm not against highlighting the HTML5 centric
>>>>>>>>> approach but I wouldn't call this "an html5 profile".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So in short: I'm fine with your comments but I cannot come
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> up with a better title/subtitle. Suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /g
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See you on the call.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> mav
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 6:15 AM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One note: the zakim bridge is overbooked.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So just in case we see that people have problem dialing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in (in such
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> case please login on IRC and let us know) I set-up this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Opera bridge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE: ONLY TO BE USED IF WE SEE THAT ZAKIM DOESN'T WORK
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone bridge details:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference ID:            33909
>>>>>>>>>>>> Start Date and Time:      Monday 06.02.2012 17:00:00 CET/CEST
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bridge Numbers:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Norway                           +47 23 69 26 03
>>>>>>>>>>>> USA                                +1 800 201 4229 (Toll-Free)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Poland (Wroclaw)                +48 71 719 6099
>>>>>>>>>>>> Poland (Warsaw)                 +48 22 262 0799
>>>>>>>>>>>> Japan                             +81 3 5435 8394
>>>>>>>>>>>> Russia                            +7 812 448 7876
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference Name:          tv profile
>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please contact SysAdmin at +47 23 69 33 60 for assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /g
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:06:15 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here the call details for todays call
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Profile/Telco)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schedule: Monday, 16:00Z (=8:00 Pacific, 11:00 Eastern, 17:00
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Europe, 01:00 Korea/Japan)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: US: +1 617 761 6200 or SIP: zakim@voip.w3.org  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code: 26632 IRC channel: #webtv
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And here the Agenda for todays call:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Profile/Agenda_Telco_6/2/2012)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Review of Charter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Profile/Charter)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Call schedule
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * TF tools (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Profile)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Process
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Initial feedbacks on the draft
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * AOB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /g
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:00:59 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the poll [1] is now closed and the winner is...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Monday, February 6, 2012 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this first call we will discuss the scope of the TV
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> profile work, how do we want the group to be organized and
>>>>>>>>> timeline (if any).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any other topic you want to add to the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> agenda let me know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll send around call details ASAP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://doodle.com/h6rfnkrqyi3uinpi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Giuseppe Pascale
>>>>>>>>>>>> TV & Connected Devices
>>>>>>>>>>>> Opera Software
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Giuseppe Pascale
>>>>>>>>>> TV & Connected Devices
>>>>>>>>>> Opera Software
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Giuseppe Pascale
>>>>>> TV & Connected Devices
>>>>>> Opera Software
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Giuseppe Pascale
>> TV & Connected Devices
>> Opera Software
>>


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 14:06:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:06 UTC