Re: Reviewing our issues

“And if we can not use the word "Media" anymore within specs such as this, then we really have a problem”

The current deliverable is focused on synchronization of narration with the text. So, this name manages the expectations.
The further evolution of specs will depend on traction we get. It may evolve, sign language is a feasible usecase. The name can be updated according to the future direction of the work.

With regards
Avneesh
From: Lars Wallin 
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 18:58
To: Laurent Le Meur 
Cc: Marisa DeMeglio ; W3C Synchronized Multimedia for Publications CG 
Subject: Re: Reviewing our issues

Just a reminder that we want to use for audiobooks etc as well. "Narration" will feel really strange to people (I don't think it's only a me thing).  

And if we can not use the word "Media" anymore within specs such as this, then we really have a problem 😉

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 13:09 Laurent Le Meur, <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org> wrote:

  +1 for Sync Narration. 
  -1 for the addition of for Publications.


  With Sync Narration we use a term which source is clearly the publishing culture. Plus, narration is one of the main properties in the JSON document representing the alternate rendition of the source content.
  The issue with Sync Media is its proximity (in the W3C) with terms like Media Queries and Media & Entertainment Activity.

  Laurent



    Le 12 nov. 2019 à 22:14, Marisa DeMeglio <marisa.demeglio@gmail.com> a écrit :

    Ok, let’s try this again - issue #24 is about naming. We should pick a name because audiobooks is likely going to CR, and our note is referenced by that spec. I do understand that as a CG note, we can rename our document with little consequence, but as we will be referenced informatively by a rec track document, it would be really nice to choose now and stick with it. 

    Based on this issue: 
    https://github.com/w3c/sync-media-pub/issues/24

    I see these options:

    Synchronized Media 
    Synchronized Narration
    Synchronized Alternative Media

    Any of them could be appended with “for Publications”.

    Let’s vote. Please indicate:

    1. Which of the three choices you like the most. 
    2. Whether you prefer to append with “for Publications” or not 

    We don’t need new ideas or other variations at this point. We’re a small group, so your one vote could change everything!! Voting closes by the end of this week (Nov 15 end of day in California).

    Thanks
    Marisa





      On Oct 11, 2019, at 15:07, Marisa DeMeglio <marisa.demeglio@gmail.com> wrote:

      Yep, that was the idea! And I see that it worked - thanks for chiming in. 

      And now for something completely different — I won’t call it baseurl but …  
      https://github.com/w3c/sync-media-pub/issues/26

      Marisa




        On Oct 11, 2019, at 01:30, Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com> wrote:

        Stirring up participation with a bikeshedding naming issue, I see what you did there… well played (grin). 

        More seriously, +1 to using GitHub directly. Possibly with an email reminder from time to time for pressing issues which lack any comments.

        Best,
        Romain.





          On 10 Oct 2019, at 23:03, Marisa DeMeglio <marisa.demeglio@gmail.com> wrote:

          Hi all, 

          I plan to work in the coming days and weeks on resolving the remaining issues in our tracker, and cleaning up the draft reports. 

          I’d also like to engage the CG more as I do this work. Does it work best to discuss the issues on this list, or would it be preferable to use the github tracker directly?

          Here’s the first issue. It’s a relatively easy one, I think:
          https://github.com/w3c/sync-media-pub/issues/24

          Thanks
          Marisa