Re: Proposed extension to HTML5.1 for rollup captions

On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:41 , Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

> > I believe in this case, the actual contributors to this proposal are members of the HTML WG.
>  
> That is the rub.  You believe this but what about others?  I am certainly willing to be convinced but where is the evidence?
>  
> Without firm evidence to this point, I was hoping the easiest way to do this would be to simply have a FSA to reference.

I am confused.  I think that the CG is producing the VTT spec and I hope to do an FSA soon.

Silvia's proposal, though initially phrased as an annex to VTT, is actually logically independent, could probably be applied to TTML, and belongs in HTML.  And I think it's her proposal, not a consensus output of the VTT group, or resulting from ideas or text from multiple members.

I may be wrong.

If I am right, it's a simple proposal to the HTML group from a member;  inspired, perhaps, by VTT work.


>  
> /paulc
>  
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>  
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:33 PM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer; David Singer; public-html
> Subject: Re: Proposed extension to HTML5.1 for rollup captions
>  
>  
> On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:22 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I am certainly not knowledgeable about what happened in the TextTracks CG.  But Silivia’s original email seemed to imply that the feature was a product of the TextTracks CG:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Feb/0210.html
>  
> >Details:
> >In the TextTracks Community Group we have analysed how to introduce rollup captions using WebVTT and the HTML <track> element.
> >
> >11 different proposals were analysed: http://www.w3.org/community/texttracks/wiki/RollupCaptions .
> >
> >One proposals was picked and developed further:http://www.w3.org/community/texttracks/wiki/MultiCueBox
> 
> 
> If this is the case then why cannot the CG could do a Final Specification Agreement on just this proposal?
>  
> I certainly agree that there is no relationship to this matter and a WebVTT FSA.
>  
> My preference would be to treat this the same as an HTML feature request from the CSS WG, the Web Apps WG, the I18N WG or the Web & TV IG. We don't usually require such requests to come in the form of a published spec with final IPR commitments. This particular proposal has not been published in any form yet, FSA or otherwise.
>  
> I understand the potential concern about circumventing the IPR policy, but I believe in this case, the actual contributors to this proposal are members of the HTML WG.
>  
> Regards,
> Maciej

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.