RE: [profile] Profile spec title

<The Mail Daemon did not deliver the comment I made about scope to the larger group. Here it is>

I  suggest it would be helpful to agree on the scope section of this document, and then pick a title that accurately reflects that scope.

Below is the scope as it is today. The first two bullets are really the scope. The following two paragraphs are there for clarification.

I believe the scope should be more precise - instead of "set of languages" it should state something about "profiles of W3C specifications". And I believe it should be specific about video services.

Once this is boiled down to one hard paragraph, the clarification paragraphs can go away and the title will declare itself.

John

==================================================================
The scope of this document is limited to:
- provide references to a set of languages that shall be supported by devices and can be used by content and service providers to author content and services to be presented to the end user.
- provide references to a set of metrics that can be used to evaluate performances of devices
The scope of this document is not to describe an entire operating system. In particular, hardware and software configuration that user would be expected to have on their devices are out of scope.
The scope of this document is not to describe a unique end-to-end delivery system. In particular, mandating a specific end-to-end network configuration (including network protocols, video codecs, video streaming technologies and so on) is out of scope for this document. Nonetheless this document may describe how some specific technologies may be combined together in order to provide a functional TV service.
==================================================================

John C. Simmons
Media Platform Business
(425) 707-2911 x72911
(425) 269-5759 mobile
johnsim@microsoft.com

________________________________________
From: Jan Lindquist [jan.lindquist@ericsson.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 5:28 AM
To: Masahito Kawamori; Giuseppe Pascale
Cc: Scott Wilson; Vickers, Mark; public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG
Subject: RE: [profile] Profile spec title

Hi Giuseppe,

The scope seems reasonable. My only comment is that (3) and (4) has dependencies to external W3C groups. My recommendation is to avoid creating a profile to future standards or activities. It should reflect what is currently available and supported. As things are adopted then they can be included in the profile and not before.

Regards,
JanL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kawamorim@gmail.com [mailto:kawamorim@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Masahito Kawamori
> Sent: den 8 februari 2012 13:54
> To: Giuseppe Pascale
> Cc: Scott Wilson; Jan Lindquist; Vickers, Mark;
> public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG
> Subject: Re: [profile] Profile spec title
>
> Sorry, Giuseppe, I fail to get your point.
>
> I thought we were talking about the title and not the scope
> of the "spec".  But if we start talking about the scope, it
> is ok too, as it is related to the title as well.
>
> Please find my comments in-line below, marked with [MK]:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Giuseppe Pascale
> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:13:33 +0100, Masahito Kawamori
> > <masahito.kawamori@ties.itu.int> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we should take one step back as suggested by John and
> make sure
> > we agree on the scope of this work.
> > While resource limited devices are for sure on of the main targets,
> > there is a "functional" part of the profile that is
> applicable to all
> > kind of devices.
> >
> > 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?
>
> > Is there any agreement that this is the scope? If so, is this well
> > refelected in the current draft (and if not, what should we change?
> > I think the following section would benefit from people review:
> >
> > Design Goals
> >
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html#design-goal
> > s
> >
> > Scope
> > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html#scope
> >
>
> [MK] OK. Let's take these into account, and see if we can agree.
>
> > 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, but
> we had two that you proposed. There was the third, proposed by me.
> Which one do you propose as the one that captures the opinions?   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?
>
> > 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?
>
> 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/>.
>
> 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
> >
>