Re: A new proposal for how to deal with text track cues

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 7:59 AM, David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com> wrote:
>> Indeed - there was some strong lobbying going on at the FCC to make this
>> happen so this is your problem now.
>
> I fail to see a problem with FCC providing a WebVTT safe harbor.
> Perhaps it might give WebVTT a boost.  And if WebVTT gains substantial
> traction, we would certainly adjust.  I just don't see it at the
> moment.

Sorry, poor wording on my side. What I meant was that right now TTML
is a safe harbour format defined by the FCC and so the movie industry
seems to have gone down this path and ignored WebVTT, so this has no
influence on our WebVTT work. But sure, if there was a reason for the
FCC to pick WebVTT as another safe harbor format, the movie industry
would certainly be more interested in WebVTT. I personally don't
actually care, because I'm just following browser needs and what Web
users/developers tell me about WebVTT.


>> WebVTT is created for everyone on the Web.
>
> Sure.  As long as the statement "as they publish to TV & Film - not
> the Web - they don't need WebVTT" is not assumed to be inversely true
> (if they publish to the web they need WebVTT).

No, you can always render your favorite format in JavaScript in
browsers. WebVTT and <track> just make the live of Web developers and
easier.


>> If however your statement implies that this group should ignore WebVTT
>> because it's not relevant to this group, then that's a fair statement and
>> I'll go away and stop bothering this group.
>
> I'd not suggest any such thing.  Hard to see the value of segregating
> the WG's out by format.  Indeed with two major companies pushing
> WebVTT, it seems that co-existence is an absolute must.  At the least,
> we will all benefit from tools that can do good WebVTT->TTML and
> TTML->WebVTT format conversion.

Input from conversion tool developers would indeed be valuable.

Regards,
Silvia.

Received on Sunday, 16 June 2013 00:55:42 UTC