Re: Kicking off to the Text Tracks Community Group

Silvia:  One could look at it from a reverse view. Remove everything in
the HTML documentation that is not needed if you have no interests in
captioning and set it aside in a pile.  Then look at that pile of stuff
and decide which part of it will make a coherent document both for those
reading/processing the captions and those writing/authoring them. If some
parts in the pile would be most appropriate in CSS then we can recommend
they be included there.  Etc.

If there are parts of the HTML documentation that are needed to understand
captioning but cannot be removed because they are also used by other
features, then they get referenced from the WebVTT document. If they get
customized in some way then those comments end up in the original pile and
they get included in the WebVTT document with references to the HTML
section where they are customizations.

I hope this makes sense to someone besides me.  Of course, it depends upon
believing that what is now in the HTML document offers a good treatment of
WebVTT. I have not formed an opinion about that. On would factor that into
the above description at the start: complete the treatment of WebVTT in
the HTML document or at least outline what needs to be done to do that.

I notice that the edit really likes algorithms -- this is the sketch of
one that might answer the questions below.

Jim King
-----Original Message-----
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:40:43 -0700
To: "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Subject: Re: Kicking off to the Text Tracks Community Group

>>
>>One thing that would be helpful for me as editor is determining exactly
>>what aspects of the HTML standard people consider to be "WebVTT" so that
>>we can extract just those. Is it just the syntax? Does it include the
>>caption data model? Are the DOM APIs part of WebVTT? Is the rendering
>>model part of WebVTT? How about the CSS extensions? Unfortunately the
>>"webvtt.html" file people may have been looking at in the past is not a
>>particularly good starting point as it is very coarse -- it's missing
>>huge
>>chunks of defining material (e.g. there's no conformance section).
>

Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 21:03:52 UTC