Media Teleconference Minutes for 20 October

Minutes from the 20 October Media Subteam teleconference are available
text below, and in html at:


                                                           - DRAFT -

                                                       HTML-A11Y telecon

20 Oct 2010

   See also: IRC log


          Eric_Carlson, Judy, Janina, silvia, John_Foliot, Mike




     * Topics
         1. Identify Scribe
         2. Actions Review
         3. Status Updates & Brief Reports; User Reqs; Added Spec Text; Open Subtitles; Etc.
         4. Media Related Bugs--Status & Next Steps
     * Summary of Action Items

   <scribe> agenda: this


Identify Scribe

   <scribe> scribe: janina

Actions Review

   Action 54 needs to be closed. Janina will do.

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 54

   <silvia> close ACTION-54

   <trackbot> ACTION-54 Follow up that NCAM files can be used in HTML5 testbed closed

   Also, close action 65.

   <silvia> close ACTION-65

   <trackbot> ACTION-65 Will review threads on getting spec text in closed

Status Updates & Brief Reports; User Reqs; Added Spec Text; Open Subtitles; Etc.

   Did that help?

   silvia: between janina and me, we've covered things in user reqs and in email

   janina: also, user reqs will move under html chairs guidance to close soon
   ... re spec text as we requested -- our request for tech neutrality not met

   eric: think we should file bugs

   Conversation proceeds with our concern that W3C not publish anything with technology specific solutions, especially not
   in a heartbeat.

   Janina will forward her mail to Paul to Judy. This was the mail that expressed concern about publishing with tech
   specific solutions.

   We're unclear what is included in heartbeat.

   Sam's message came to Janina and also to public-html. Janina forwarded it to public-a11y-html

   Judy will lead on anything we might still be able to do about publication.

   Silvia: Should we discuss changes on list?

   John: Yes

   Silvia: Very keen for input esp from Philip and Eric

   John: So, we're looking to make spec tech neutral? That's first?

   Janina I have an rcs of changes

   <JF> Silvia you are breaking up badly

   <silvia> my proposal is to start the discussion of what bugs we should report on the mailing list

   It was me

   Silvia: Proposes we discuss on list of the changes we want.
   ... Still want to ref websrt as a baseline, though it needn't be the only implemented one, want to keep it in timeline

   John: Concern that websrt undefined in w3c space
   ... Had understood that we wanted to be fully agnostic

   Judy: Strong +1 on that

   Eric: Minor correction -- WebSRT is well spec'd at both w3c and what at this point

   judy: also unaware that it's spec'd in w3c space

   eric: parsing is precise as in the html spec

   judy: but this is a leap, if the group working on media hasn't agreed on it.

   OK, I'm supposedly back, but I have no audio. Trying again ...

   Argh, still no audio!

   Trying to dial in, but still have no audio!

   I'm back ...

   John: Silvia, you wanted to see something from websrt remain, can it be made agnostic?

   Silvia: I think that's a misunderstanding
   ... we need a baseline codec -- we need this for external text formats
   ... all browser discussion i've had in the pst months suggest that websrt, while it needs improvements, is not a bad
   format for baseline and lots of people are looking at implementing it.
   ... it would be bad if it were the only format we're lookikng to implement

   Judy: But that's exactly the concern, we shouldn't implement something we haven't consensed

   Eric: agree we need a req for baseline, but the decision needs to come out of the broader wg
   ... it's really important that browser vendors can start implementing now to identify issues, and that's orthogonal to
   what ends up being spec'd

   Judy: So, we need it to gain knwledge. Are we OK that it won't confuse people?

   eric: we should remove references from the spec, and the html-wg needs to decide as the wider group on what to use as a

   silvia: you're right. i've changed me mind. I'm confusing trial implementations with what's in the spec

   john: if it's to be a spec we look at, it does need to be in w3c space

   eric: no issue with that

   silvia: propose we get websrt completely out of the w3c spec
   ... then a separate doc that proposes websrt, so we can discuss it fully independently of any other contender

   judy: can i ask for confirmation that we're all on the same page?
   ... it sounds like we all want refs to websrt out

   <silvia> proposal: 1. remove all websrt reference from - probably needs bug reports; 2.
   evaluate independently as a possible baseline format (not
   sure if 2. needs to go into W3C space for the evaluation to take place)

   janina: +1

   john: believe all of us on the call agree

   eric: whatever we suggest should be clear that there should be no ref to a format, whether ttml or websrt, because
   there hasn't been a decision
   ... not sure it's important to move a description of websrt into w3c space at this point
   ... what's important is to open a discussion

   <silvia> +1 on eric

   <silvia> ack

Media Related Bugs--Status & Next Steps

   john: I've filed several bugs, Ian pointed them all on me
   ... filed to make the filing deadline

   janina: the clear audio is a misunderstanding. clear audio is only created at production. the spec and user agents are
   not implicated

   eric: fully agree

   john: also a bug on pausing audio ...

   Silvia: there's an identical bug -- so we have duplicated bug


   Silvia: suggest closing the later as a duplicate of the former

   john: allow user

   pausing the bugzilla discussion now that Mike has joined re heartbeat spec publication

   Judy: introducing our understanding that spec text now added but without neutralizing tech specific solutions
   ... is it in the heartbeat?
   ... It would be a significant problem for us if that is so, because it's not our consensed direction, and would have
   negative effects on our public veracity


   <silvia> Thu Oct 14 22:31:55 2010 UTC (6 days ago) by ihickson <- when the change occurred

   Janina waves at Dave

   Judy: we very much want not to have tech specific solutions in the heartbeat

   <silvia> Revision


   I've lost audio!

   I'm back!

   Ah, must be packet loss here -- I'm gone again

   Mike: Not my decision, unfortunately. Need to contact chairs on this.

   Judy: Are we willing to not have these media sections at all, if that means we cannot get tech neutral into this

   General ascent

   Judy: seems the reversion shouldn't delay publication?

   Mike: They will insist that changes need discussion

   Judy: But it seems to us that a change has gone that didn't get discussion

   Silvia: noting that unrolling one day would do it

   Mike: that's possible

   <silvia> Revision

   Mike: So are we ok with 1.4509?

   judy: would there be unrelated changes that would be lost with surhc a revision? Or is it only our part?

   <silvia> revision 1.4509 has no mention of WebSRT and is from Oct 14

   <MikeSmith> MikeSmith: this was my mistake to begin with

   <MikeSmith> MikeSmith: I should not have used the 1.4514 revision to begin with, should have rolled by to a previous

   <MikeSmith> MikeSmith: I will roll back to the Oct 12 state

   Mike: Actually rolling back to 14494 as it's the version that was prep'd following the decision to go heartbeat

   Thanks, Mike!

   John: returning to bugs
   ... also a bug to make alternate versions visible
   ... do we know it's in the spec?


   John: I'll check

   <MikeSmith> cheers

Summary of Action Items

Found Scribe: janina
Present: Eric_Carlson Judy Janina silvia John_Foliot Mike


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

Chair, Open Accessibility	
Linux Foundation

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 23:54:02 UTC