Re: proposed updated response to MPEG on codecs

Seems that way

On Oct 16, 2014, at 12:57 , Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> we could always define this new MIME media type parameter in TTML2, but wouldn't we need to update the current registration?
> 
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:01 PM, David (Standards) Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 10:22 , Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:
> 
> > I cannot support defining a formal media type string (including any of its parameters) on an informal wiki.  This is highly irregular.
> 
> agreed.  I think that MPEG should say “the mime type the contents would have if in a separate file goes here, with any optional parameters” and stop at that.
> 
> So, MPEG doesn’t care how irregular we are, but we should not be irregular, of course.
> 
> >  I believe its general syntax and semantics must be normatively defined in TTML2 as part of the media type (and preferably in my view) then registered with IANA (not the other way around either).
> 
> yup
> 
> >
> >                 Mike
> >
> > From: Nigel Megitt [mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:23 AM
> > To: Michael Dolan
> > Cc: Timed Text Working Group
> > Subject: Re: proposed updated response to MPEG on codecs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:52, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for fixes.   I assume Dave will update before posting.
> >
> > As for the your second point, I am not sure that I follow.  We must define the new media type parameter formally in TTML2 or our decisions and this communication are meaningless.  Is your point that we did not agree as a group to register the update with IANA?  I agree, but I also did not say that to MPEG (although I personally think we should).
> >
> >
> > I was expecting the MIME type parameter to be external to TTML2 and defined on the registry page. I'm not against updating the IANA registration if that's useful but we haven't decided to do that. If we do, then clearly the relevant part of the TTML 2 spec would need updating to match. If we don't, then there may be no changes resulting, in TTML2.
> >
> > Since there may therefore be no change in TTML 2 I don't want to give the wrong impression.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> >
> >                 Mike
> >
> > From: Nigel Megitt [mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:39 AM
> > To: Michael Dolan; 'Timed Text Working Group'
> > Subject: Re: proposed updated response to MPEG on codecs
> >
> > Thanks for the quick turnaround Mike. 3 things:
> >
> > typo: s/medaType/mediaType
> > correction: s/procProfile/processorProfiles
> >
> > Query: do we want the sentence "Its parameters will be extended in TTML2 to include the proposed syntax above." ? Unless we're changing the IANA registration then I do not think we have agreed to do this.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> > From: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>
> > Date: Thursday, 16 October 2014 16:29
> > To: 'Timed Text Working Group' <public-tt@w3.org>
> > Subject: proposed updated response to MPEG on codecs
> > Resent-From: <public-tt@w3.org>
> > Resent-Date: Thursday, 16 October 2014 16:30
> >
> > Per my action item from today, please see the attached.
> >
> > Over to Dave and Nigel for review to see if I captured where we ended up in today’s call; then over to Dave to upload to MPEG (or I can if needed).
> >
> > Time is very short and should be posted Sunday morning CEDT.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >                 Mike
> >
> > Michael A DOLAN
> > TBT, Inc.  PO Box 190
> > Del Mar, CA 92014
> > (m) +1-858-882-7497
> > mdolan@newtbt.com
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 16 October 2014 20:07:35 UTC