Re: HTML charter and Timed tracks

On 05/07/2010 05:52 AM, Sean Hayes wrote:
> On the issue of charter, I see nothing in the HTML charter about
> developing a timed text format, there are other places in the W3C for
> that. While specifying how a timed track is referenced by HTML as
> embedded content does seem to me legitimate, I think the current
> direction goes well beyond this.
> I respectfully  ask that the chairs and the Hypertext Coordination
> Group clarify whether they think developing a timed track format is
> in scope for HTML or whether it more properly falls in the remit of
> the Timed Text WG, the SYMM WG (or both) to further work on a
> suitable timed text format based on SRT, should that be deemed
> necessary.

As this appeared in the document without prior discussion or 
presentation of rationale, I would first like to have a discussion of 
whether or not this effort merits standardization at the W3C before 
entering into a discussion about possible venues.

I gather that there is some interest with Opera[1] for this feature.  I 
am curious if there are other browser vendors interested in implementing 
this in the near term, or if there is sufficient interest in 
participating in the development of the standard -- where participation 
can be any level from reviewing to writing tests to implementing it. 
Similarly I would be interested if there was any vendors were indicated 
that they would NOT implement this for any reason.

If it fails to meet any of the tests mentioned above, then the venue 
question is moot.

The final question I would like to tee up is whether there is a working 
group that is ready, willing, and able to pick up this work, should 
there be interest.  From my perspective, if there is interest in 
standardizing this, and there is a group of people who have a credible 
plan to follow through, then don't think that there will be a problem.

The reason why I would prefer to proceed in this fashion: should this 
turn out to be the type of thing the W3C should standardize, and should 
there be sufficient interest in participating in the development of such 
a standard, and should there be no obvious other home for this effort, 
then I would be inclined to work the charter issue.

- Sam Ruby


> -----Original Message----- From:
> [] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson Sent:
> Friday, May 07, 2010 8:00 AM To: Subject: Re:
> Timed tracks
> On Fri, 7 May 2010, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> (Hixie has participated very little in these discussions, so it's
>> hard to frame this as his creation alone.)
> For the record, I have followed the very same strategy I have used
> for everything else in the spec: I have read, carefully and in
> detail, every e-mail ever sent on the subject to the mailing lists
> (p-h-a11y, p-h, and whatwg), I have publicly collected concrete use
> cases [1][2] and invited everyone to contribute their own [3][4], I
> have researched the vast number of options available to us, e.g. all
> the various timed track formats [5], again in public, and I have used
> all this information to try to come up with solutions that satisfy
> all the use cases without introducing unncessary complexity and
> without closing off future avenues for extensions, again with all of
> the proposals done in public [6]. These proposals are, as Philip
> says, based on the ideas in the aforementioned mailing list
> discussions, for example those documented in the bugs for which I am
> doing all this work in the first place [7][8], and those documented
> in task force polls [9].
> The work is far from done; maybe WebSRT isn't a good solution, and
> then it'll be thrown out and something better used instead. However,
> the working group charter calls for me to make proposals in the form
> of spec text [10], and the working group process for issues with
> these proposals to be raised in bugs [11], and I intend to follow
> exactly this model, just as I have with everything else.
> [1]
> [3]
> [4]
> [6] [7]
> [8]
> [9]
> [10]
> [11]

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 00:30:13 UTC