Timed Text action proposition [was: Re: Timed Text work]

From: Al Gilman (asgilman@iamdigex.net)
Date: Thu, Jan 24 2002

  • Next message: Philipp Hoschka: "[Fwd: [Moderator Action] [Helps] Matriplex free reference software]"

    Message-Id: <200201241536.KAA12371@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
    Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:36:43 -0500
    To: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>, Neil Carson <neil@liberate.com>
    From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
    Cc: www-tv@w3.org, www-tt-tf@w3.org
    Subject: Timed Text action proposition [was: Re: Timed Text work]
    
    Neil,
    
    First comes the need:  Caption producers presently have to produce into
    multiple formats in parallel because the players that their captions wind up in
    support three different proprietary formats and there are too many players that
    don't play anything but one that they like to leave any of the three out.  This
    is a bear, as the caption producers will gladly tell you.
    
    Next comes the opportunity:  In preliminary discussions to date, the holders of
    the IP rights in the formats we are most aware of have all supported the notion
    that this stuff is a commodity, not a market lever; and the industry is ripe
    for a neutral format that all play and produce.  We are provisionally
    proceeding on that premise.
    
    Third, the technical strategy for problem attack:  As to why it takes a Working
    Group producing a new language specification, Aaron Cohen said it better than I
    can.
    
    -- quote,
    cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tt-tf/2002Jan/0010.html"
    
    To me, this winds up being a pretty good reason for defining a TT language
    spec, even given the requirement that we use as much pre-existing markup (in
    the form of modules) as possible. Right now, there is no specification that
    integrates the appropriate modules together into a document type. Since the
    document type will likely be related to, but distinct from XHTML, SMIL, and
    SVG, we'll have to create our own.
    
    -- end quote
    
    This doesn't mean that we can answer _just_ what we're up to, here.  There is
    residual uncertainty about the precise boundaries of the capability that will
    be created.  The real-time vs. canned-content scenario-comparison has yet to be
    worked systematically; there are uncertainties as to how much presentational
    paraphenalia to equip this language with, etc.  We are trying to set up a work
    process that will provide for a progressive elimination of uncertainties about
    what the notional format will do and how.    But the _centering_ of the "action
    proposition," and the basic raison d'etre, the reasoning why we feel "yes,
    taking an action of this general nature is something to do" are roughly as
    recapitulated above.
    
    HTH
    
    Al
    
    At 04:29 AM 2002-01-24 , Philipp Hoschka wrote:
    >(adding www-tt-tf to the thread)
    >
    >Neil,
    >
    >The general idea is to discuss whether W3C should work on an 
    >XML-based format for "timed text", i.e. subtitles, captioning 
    >etc., and what should be done.
    >
    >For more info, see the message I forwarded
    ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2002JanMar/0007.html>http://
    lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2002JanMar/0007.html
    >
    >You can find an initial list of requirements here
    ><http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/timetext.html>http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/t
    imetext.html
    >
    >Hope this helps
    >
    >-Philipp
    >
    >Neil Carson wrote:
    >> 
    >> Can you give some background on what you're up to here for the uninitiated
    >> soles like myself :-)
    >> 
    >>     Thanks,
    >> 
    >>     Neil
    >> 
    >> > I think this is of interest to the TV community. We'd be especially
    >> > interested if you could send pointers to already existing efforts in
    >> > that space to www-tt-tf@w3.org
    >