On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> The feature that this change proposal is suggesting does not depend on >> WebVTT. It is simply and extension to the TextTrack API so it is possible >> to fulfill FCC requirements for online video captions in the browser. >> WebVTT will build on top of it and I would recommend TTML to also build on >> top of it. But it does not depend on WebVTT having the same feature >> implemented. In fact, it is the other way around where the TextTrack API >> provides functionality that both WebVTT and TTML can build on. >> > > At a minimum, the TTWG will need to review this proposal in technical > depth to determine if TTML can build on it or if there are impedance > mismatches that need to be resolved. > Sure. The point is not if the TTWG will pick it up, but that it is possible for it to pick it up. I'm not aware yet of any liaison activity between the CG and the TTWG to > request or initiate such a review. > A liaison between the CG and TTWG would not be required. Rather: TTWG should review the TextTrack API and see if TTML wants to make use of it (similar to how WebVTT makes use of it). That would be a worthwhile undertaking. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 04:34:34 UTC