- From: Rob Smith via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:19:14 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
That's a very good summary of the WebVMT design evolution. I started with the **container format** approach (1.), and then realised that extensions are required to define the map rendering area, akin to the [WebVTT region](https://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/#webvtt-region-definition-block), so the **base format** approach (2.) is needed. The proposal to publish WebVTT as a WG Note by the [Timed Text WG](https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText) last month has weakened the case for copying its syntax, so a **placeholder** approach (3.) is now worth considering too, with more focus on the data model than the actual file format. However, it's important to define a suitable file format soon for early adopters to implement in order to progress beyond the incubation phase, so this is a priority. There was a comparison between WebVTT and WebVMT in the [breakout session](https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/113#issuecomment-432971265) at TPAC Lyon. To summarise, WebVMT generally follows WebVTT where possible but certain modifications and extensions are necessary, e.g. the [map block](http://w3c.github.io/sdw/proposals/geotagging/webvmt/#webvmtmap), which are [minuted]( https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/proposals/geotagging/webvmt/meetings/2018-10-24-webvmt-breakout.md) at the start of the meeting - slide 3 of the [presentation]( http://w3c.github.io/sdw/proposals/geotagging/webvmt/meetings/2018-10-24_MetadataCues.pdf). -- GitHub Notification of comment by rjksmith Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1097#issuecomment-440659221 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2018 13:19:21 UTC