- From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:44:16 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Right. I am happy for the group to consider them, and provide feedback as the case may be. I do not think it is however reasonable to necessarily hold-off and/or require significant changes to IMSC 1 and/or TTML 2 (as they approach LC) based on a WD. There is always the opportunity to address the final published requirements in future revisions of the specifications. Best, -- Pierre On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > I agree with Nigel that we should at least consider whether/how we support > these requirements (now and as they evolve) and be able to document (if > needed) where and why we don't satisfy them. > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi Nigel, >> >> The point is that the recommendations might fluctuate with time, and >> it is not reasonable IMSC 1 and TTML 2 to track a moving target given >> their timeline. >> >> Best, >> >> -- Pierre >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> >> wrote: >> > The requirements we assess the Recommendations against do not need to be >> > normative so I think it is reasonable for us to take a snapshot if they >> > are not stable. >> > >> > >> > >> > On 19/08/2014 17:30, "Pierre-Anthony Lemieux" <pal@sandflow.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Aren't these specification working drafts, and thus subject to change? >> >>If so, it is probably not reasonable to make TTML 2 and IMSC 1 >> >>contingent on them given their timeline. >> >> >> >>Best, >> >> >> >>-- Pierre >> >> >> >>On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> >> >>wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the heads-up Glenn. It looks like these bits: >> >>> >> >> >>> >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-media-accessibility-reqs-20140814/#captionin >> >>>g >> >>> and >> >>> >> >> >>> >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-media-accessibility-reqs-20140814/#enhanced- >> >>>captions-subtitles >> >>> are particularly relevant to us. >> >>> >> >>> Would anyone object to adopting those requirements as a subset of the >> >>> requirements that TTML 2 and IMSC 1 should be measured against when >> >>> assessing their conformance when it comes to LC/CR as per the process >> >>>for >> >>> publishing Recommendations (either the old or the new process)? >> >>> >> >>> Kind regards, >> >>> >> >>> Nigel >> >>> >> >>> From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> >> >>> Date: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 16:59 >> >>> To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org> >> >>> Subject: FYI - Media Accessibility User Requirements WD >> >>> Resent-From: <public-tt@w3.org> >> >>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 17:00 >> >>> >> >>> Media Accessibility User Requirements Working Draft Updated >> >>> >> >>> 14 August 2014 | Archive >> >>> >> >>> http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4024 >> >>> >> >>> The Protocols and Formats Working Group (PFWG) today published >> >>> an updated Working Draft of "Media Accessibility User >> >>> Requirements," a planned W3C Working Group Note. This document >> >>> describes the accessibility requirements of people with >> >>> disabilities with respect to audio and video on the Web, >> >>> particularly in the context of HTML5. It explains alternative >> >>> content technologies that people use to get audio and video >> >>> content, and how these fit in the larger picture of >> >>> accessibility, both technically within a web user agent and >> >>> from a production process point of view. Learn more about the >> >>> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). >> >>> >> >>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/ >> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-media-accessibility-reqs-20140814/ >> >>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 17:45:09 UTC