- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:30:12 +0100
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
Like Simon, I would also regard the extensive discussions on the mailing lists (both WHATWG originally and later this CG list), as well as the open and closed bugs and their comments as a proof of extensive feedback and comments on the spec. In addition, we had many discussions at FOMS, most of which are documented at http://www.foms-workshop.org/foms2013/pmwiki.php/Main/Schedule (for 2013) and http://www.foms-workshop.org/foms2012/pmwiki.php/Main/Schedule (for 2012). Note the diversity of the participants on the respective Websites. Further, if you search on Google.com for WebVTT, you find more than about 145K results - that should provide proof for wide-spread discussion and review, too. Finally, you will even find WebVTT mentioned in FCC documents, e.g. http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/VPAAC/First_VPAAC_Report_to_the_FCC_7-11-11_FINAL.pdf I think we're in pretty good shape for proving wide review, if you ask me. However, does "wide review" also mean that all the issues that have been discussed have to have been resolved? I'm a bit hazy on that point. Also, we need to prepare the CR document with the correct W3C headers. We can do at the drop of a hat, once requested by the TT-WG. That should probably be our next effort. Regards, Silvia. On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:34:33 +0100, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:29:14 +0100, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 11:57 , John Luther <jluther@jwplayer.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, Dave, I was just writing to you. :-) >>>> >>>> Yes, we support WebVTT in JW Player and believe very strongly in the >>>> technology. +Jeroen has been more involved in that activity than I have. >>>> >>>> video.js supports is as well, I've added Steve to the thread. >>>> >>>> Do you think this lack of feedback is a serious risk to the spec >>>> advancing? This is surprising to me as every major desktop browser now has >>>> basic support (http://caniuse.com/#feat=webvtt), surely that counts as >>>> significant review & adoption? >>> >>> >>> It counts as adoption, for sure, but we also need comments on the spec. >>> itself. >> >> >> Comments that have been addressed: >> >> >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&component=WebVTT&list_id=50662&product=TextTracks%20CG&query_format=advanced >> >> Comments that are still open: >> >> >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=WebVTT&list_id=50663&product=TextTracks%20CG&query_format=advanced > > > Bugs filed in HTML WG or WHATWG mentioning "webvtt": > > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&list_id=50667&product=HTML%20WG&product=WHATWG&query_format=advanced&short_desc=webvtt&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr > > > >> There have also been comments sent to various mailing lists over the >> years, e.g. feedback from me in 2011 including the word "webvtt": >> >> >> https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=webvtt&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=simonp%40opera.com&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=&period_year=2011&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date >> > > > -- > Simon Pieters > Opera Software >
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 13:30:59 UTC