W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tt-tf@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Proposed Timed-Text Working Group (TTWG) draft charter

From: geoff freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Date: 16 Oct 2002 16:02:34 -0400
Message-ID: <-1177338345geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
To: <www-tt-tf@w3.org>

>4) We would appreciate particular feedback on the  following specific
>a- Milestones:
>Is a two years schedule (including life after Rec) realistic or

I think two years is sufficient provided we make an important amendment to the requirements document.  Currently it says the following:

A standardized timed-text format would eliminate this duplication of work. It would also simplify the creation and distribution of synchronized text for use with a multitude of devices, both software and hardware, such as multimedia players, caption encoders and decoders (EIA-608, 708 and TeleText, for example), character generators, LED displays and other text-display devices.

After some discussion with my colleagues here at WGBH, I'm beginning to think this is too grand a scheme.  What we *really* need immediately is something to replace the three text-delivery formats that currently exist for multimedia players:  QText, RealText and SAMI.  If we can develop a new format that supplants these three proprietary formats, we will have done our job.  This can definitely be done in a two-year time frame.

Trying to invent a new format that encompasses all the features of EIA-708, on the other hand, will be a much longer project.  Developing a new standard that does what EIA-708 already does sounds redundant and unnecessary.  A better idea would be to define this new standard not only as a way to replace QText, RealText and SAMI but also as a basis for a data interchange format which can be converted to other formats, including EIA-708.

Also, if people really want a format that DOES encompass EIA-708 and other standards, and is intended to replace these existing standards, perhaps that could be moved to timed text version 2.0.  (I believe this point has received some discussion on the list already, but I couldn't find a reference in the archives.)

>c- Does your organization plan to participate in the work of
>this Working Group ?


Geoff Freed
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 16:03:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:40:39 UTC