Re: TTML Agenda for 15/05/13 - Proposed updates to charter

Hi Silvia et al.,

> Think about a sw developer who has a TTML file and wants to translate
> it to a WebVTT file to be rendered in a Web browser that only supports
> WebVTT.

If there is a mapping between TTML and the TextTrackAPI, i.e. a
mapping between TTML and HTML 5, why would one need to translate the
file?

Thanks,

-- Pierre


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to reply to the idea of having an "common object model" for
> translating cues between formats.
>
> I think that is an effort that is bound to result in yet another
> format specification rather than in something that is actually
> practically useful.
>
> I'd like to put that on the background that I've worked on creating an
> abstract model for what captions are before. I've analysed typical
> caption features and put that together on a Web page:
> http://www.w3.org/community/texttracks/wiki/Caption_Model .
>
> But you will notice that by doing so, I had to follow existing ideas
> of how captions are rendered. In particular, I closely followed the
> CEA708 model.
>
> The next step would be to specify these ideas in an object model
> diagram of sorts. But what use would such a object model be?
>
> Think about a sw developer who has a TTML file and wants to translate
> it to a WebVTT file to be rendered in a Web browser that only supports
> WebVTT. What does he gain by having a "common object model"? IMHO:
> nothing. It will not help him make that translation, because the
> specifics of TTML and WebVTT are different from the specifics of the
> object model. Thus, we have just increased the complexity of his task
> from two to three formats and solved nothing.
>
> In fact, wasn't the idea of TTML exactly that: creating a language in
> XML that would be able to translate all other caption formats that
> existed previously and would exist afterwards?
>
> I therefore plead to you: let's not waste any more time on an abstract
> task such as creating a "common object model" and instead do something
> that is actually useful to a developer.
>
> Best Regards,
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Michael Jordan <mijordan@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Some notes regarding proposed updates to charter :
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/timed-text-charter.html
>>
>> In the mission statement, the phrase "based on implementation experience and
>> interoperability
>> feedback" is too detailed to include in the mission and gets into the "how."
>> Under Scope :
>>
>> Change wording of "Such formats MUST be useable for online media captioning,
>> described video (aka video/audio description) and
>>
>> should address the media accessibility user requirements." to "Such formats
>> MUST support requirements for online media captioning, described video (aka
>> video/audio description) and must address the media accessibility user
>> requirements."
>>
>> When does "broadcast production" end? The term is used vaguely here.
>> " Publish a Recommendation for a new Timed Text Markup Language (TTML) 1.1
>>
>> specification to include the Note described above." What is the note
>> referenced in this sentence?
>>
>> "The Group is expected to produce annual updates for the Recommendation with
>> previously specified but now
>>
>> newly supported features by browser vendors." This should be a separate
>> deliverable, "Annual recommendation updates…"
>>
>> "Establish a semantic mapping between TTML and WebVTT in order to facilitate
>> browser implementation and market adoption." Per our discussion on this
>> morning's call, the idea of a direct semantic mapping between TTML and
>> WebVTT may not be as desirable as a mapping of both semantic structures to a
>> common object model, which can be used to translate cues from either source
>> to HTML5 and CSS.
>>
>> Should wrapping up the TTML 1.0 Second Edition come before the new TTML 1.1
>> specification in the scope list?
>>
>> Under Liaisons with W3C Groups. Should we liaise with the group working on
>> Encrypted Media Extensions or is that be covered under our HTML Working
>> Group dependency?
>> Should browser vendors be included under External Groups?
>>
>>
>> On 5/15/13 1:03 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> our teleconference is scheduled with reference to Boston Time, the correct
>> time of this teleconference in your locale may change. Please check
>> http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=05&day=15&year=2013&hour=10&min=0&sec=0&p1=43
>>
>> Thursdays 10:00am-11:00am Boston local
>>
>> Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 8865 ("TTML")
>> IRC: server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #tt Web gateway to
>> :http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc
>>
>>
>> Chair: Sean Hayes
>>
>> Agenda+ Assign Scribe
>>
>> Agenda+ Proposed updates to charter :
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/timed-text-charter.html
>>
>> Agenda+ Progress on publication of SE
>>
>> Agenda+ HTML5 mapping (now as change proposal [1])
>>
>> Agenda+ Approval of 1.1 Change proposals [2] and [3].
>>
>> AOB
>>
>> Tracker (Issues and Actions): http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker
>> Profile draft:  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/tip/ttml10-sdp-us
>>
>> Change proposals:
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/changeProposal005
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/changeProposal001
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/changeProposal002
>>
>>
>> TTML Wiki
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText
>>
>> Second edition draft:
>>
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/tip/ttml10/spec/ttaf1-dfxp.html?content-type=text/html%3bcharset=utf-8
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 01:19:28 UTC