RE: Comments on Working Draft "Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 Use Cases and Requirements"

Thanks for your additional comment. I will ensure there is a
link to the group's charter in the requirements document.

Regards,
Glenn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: guido.grassel@nokia.com [mailto:guido.grassel@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 4:24 AM
> To: Glenn A. Adams; public-tt@w3.org
> Cc: Art.Barstow@nokia.com
> Subject: RE: Comments on Working Draft "Timed Text (TT) 
> Authoring Format 1.0 Use Cases and Requirements"
> 
> 
> Dear Glenn, dear TTWG members,
> 
> Thank you for considering our comments and sending a detailed 
> response.
> 
> GG 09-01: While reviewing your response I noticed that a 
> reference to the TTWG charter is missing. In fact, I can not 
> find it from the TTWG public Web pages either. Reference to 
> the charter is important because requirements need to reflect 
> what the TTWG has been chartered to produce. Searching the 
> W3C site I found a document at 
> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/ttcharter20020901.html In the 
> following, I assume this doc is the charter of the TTWG. I 
> will refer to it as "the charter".
> 
> Feedback to your disposition of comments below, marked as "GG 09-01:".
> 
> BR
> - Guido
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:10 PM
> To: Grassel Guido (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); Barstow Art (Nokia-TP/Boston)
> Cc: public-tt@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on Working Draft "Timed Text (TT) 
> Authoring Format
> 1.0 Use Cases and Requirements"
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Guido,
> 
> The TTWG has reviewed your comments on [1] and provides the
> following responses (inserted inline below).
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-tt-af-1-0-req-20030915/
> 
> We greatly appreciate Nokia's efforts to review and comment, and
> understand that this requires valuable resources to accomplish.
> 
> Regards,
> Glenn Adams, Chair, for TTWG
> 
> > From: <guido.grassel@nokia.com> 
> > Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:41:28 +0200
> > To: <public-tt@w3.org> 
> > Cc: <guido.grassel@nokia.com>, <Art.Barstow@nokia.com> 
> 
> > NOK-1: The TT AF should not duplicate functionality that can already
> > be found from existing or upcoming W3C Recommendations. Instead it
> > should adopt useful functionality from W3C languages such as SMIL,
> > XHTML, SVG or CSS. We request adding such a requirement to section
> > 4.1. 
> 
> We interpret this requirement as stating essentially the following:
> "don't invent something new [unless you have a good reason to do so],
> and in case you don't invent, then adopt an existing W3C technology".
> 
> Although we view this as a very basic requirement under which we have
> been operating, we have no objection to documenting it as such;
> therfore, we will add a new general requirement to this effect.
> 
> GG 09-01: OK
> 
> > NOK-2: Use of the TT AF in combination with SVG and SMIL are very
> > important and should be mentioned as a requirement. For instance, it
> > should be possible to use the TT AF as a 'textstream' media 
> object in
> > a SMIL presentation.
> 
> The current work (and requirements) document focuses solely on the
> specification and use of an authoring content format, and not a
> distribution format. 
> 
> Since SMIL is effectively designed to work with distribution formats
> for use by its media objects, we believe it is best to not explicitly
> define such usage in the TT Authoring Format Requirements.
> Nevertheless, we recognize the need for such a usage, and intend to
> address that as possible future work of the TTWG. In this regard, we
> would solicit Nokia's participation in helping define such a
> distribution format.
> 
> Note that the current requirements document does not exclude the
> use of the authoring format as a distribution format; so, it would be
> possible, though perhaps not desirable, to use the authoring format
> directly as content referenced by a text media object in SMIL. Keep
> in mind, however, that it is unlikely that the current authoring
> format will be expressed in a format that is suitable for streaming,
> particularly not suited for arbitrary stream entry points.
> 
> 
> GG 09-01: The definition of the scope of the TTWG in the 
> charter reads (1st bullet): "Develop a new Timed Text format 
> that integrates well with other W3C technologies.". I think 
> this is a clear requirement to the TTAF. See also comments on NOK-3.
> 
> 
> 
> > NOK-3: Use of the TT AF as a distribution format is insufficiently
> > represented in use cases and in requirements. It appears that the TT
> > AF is primarily intended as an authoring format that serves as input
> > to a transcding process into a proprietary distribution format. Use
> > of the TT AF as distribution format should be at least equally
> > important as serving as an authoring format.
> 
> Your observation is correct. And we do view a distribution format as
> important as an authoring format. However, we do not agree that use of
> the authoring format directly as a distribution format is desirable.
> Further, we have determined that the group should take up the formal
> definition of a distribution format only after we have completed an
> authoring format.
> 
> One of the primary requirements driving an authoring format is the
> existence of many distribution formats, with none of these being
> sufficient as an authoring format interchange standard. As a
> consequence, our current focus is on satisfying this need rather than
> adding one more item to the already large set of distribution formats.
> 
> As a side-bar, we have already noted that SVG would be a reasonable
> distribution format.
> 
> GG 09-01: This plan to make two specifications does not 
> become clear to the reader of the reviewed requirements 
> document. Furthermore, the charter talks about specifying one 
> format not two.
> 
> It is not clear to me why a TT format can not serve both 
> authoring and distribution formats. Why is TT different from 
> other Web technologies? The TT group should provide clear 
> evidence that specification of two formats has advantages 
> over the specification of one format. 
> 
> There are use cases where a person wants to first read a TT 
> document and modify (re-use) this content afterwards. This 
> use case can likely not be supported with separate authoring 
> and distribution formats. Person-to-person messaging in the 
> mobile domain, e.g. Multimedia Messaging (MMS) is one example 
> for this use case. As of today, the highest use of 
> synchronized multimedia and SMIL is in MMS.
> 
> In summary, we disagree with the specification of two 
> separate formats, one for authoring and another one for 
> distribution, instead of one format that can serve both purposes.
> 
> > NOK-4: A "Basic" language profile of the TT AF should also 
> be defined
> > that is suitable for distribution to constraint embedded 
> devices such
> > as mobile terminals. We request adding such a requirement to section
> > 4.1. 
> 
> We have discussed the issue of defining profiles for the authoring
> format and have determined that the axis for determination should be
> around authorial usage scenarios, e.g., subtitling versus captioning,
> visual presentation versus aural presentation (via text to speech),
> and so on.
> 
> When the TTWG does take up the definition of a distribution format,
> then it is expected that device capabilities will be a determiner in
> profiling the distribution format.
> 
> 
> GG 09-01: A "Basic" profile is needed for a distribution format only.
> 
> 
> > NOK-5 It must be possible to author TT documents in a device
> > independent way. We request adding such a requirement to 
> section 4.1. 
> 
> Because we have focused on an authoring format rather than a
> distribution format, the current approach is effectively device
> independent, since we are expressing authorial intention and not
> expressing device behavior. However, if you should have specific
> ideas about some features being device dependent, then please
> let us know.
> 
> 
> GG 09-01: Disagree. A format expressing author intention is 
> not necessarily device independent. Author intentions are in 
> many cases highly device specific. Some authors only have one 
> specific (set of similar) devices) in mind when creating 
> their content. This is a situation the Web needs to get away from.
> 
> Therefore, I encourage the TTWG to include this quite mild 
> requirement. A more stringent requirement on DI would be the 
> following: "The format should only allow to author TT 
> documents that are device independent. The format should 
> prevent that authors from creating documents that dependent 
> on specific device properties."
> 
>