- From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:26:58 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Dave Singer <singer@mac.com>, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Hi Silvia, > No other specification in the history of W3C has had to jump through this many hoops to get to CR. As far as I know, WebVTT has been held to the same criteria for CR transition as IMSC (and TTML2). For better or for worse, the group has collectively spent multiple hundreds of man-hours closing issues leading up to the TTML2 CR. Best, -- Pierre On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > If there is a decision this group should take, it's to move webvtt to CR. I > challenge you to get this done rather than throw another process roadblock > at webvtt. > > It's ready and has been for a long time. No other specification in the > history of W3C has had to jump through this many hoops to get to CR. > > All other groups of the W3C have deemed it ready for months of not years. > > Do everyone a favour and just decide to move it. > > Kind regards, > Silvia. > > > On Tue., 27 Mar. 2018, 3:16 am Nigel Megitt, <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Not so much an opinion as a restatement - at this point we seem to be in >> the realm of process. We made the following resolution at TPAC 2016 in >> Lisbon [1] as proposed by David Singer: >> >> > RESOLUTION: If we do not move WebVTT to CR in this Charter period then >> >we will not include it in any new Charter. >> >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-tt-minutes.html#resolution01 >> >> If there's another way to meet the needs of the folk who want to progress >> VTT, then one way to satisfy that resolution is to close this line of work >> in TTWG and remove it from the draft new Charter; I think the Process >> requires publication as a WG Note in this event. I assume that this does >> not preclude taking it up again in another WG or other forum. >> >> I can't actually see any other ways to satisfy the resolution - are there >> any? >> >> Otherwise we would need to make a new different decision very quickly (and >> our Decision Policy review period for any decision made now expires after >> the end of the current Charter, so time is not in favour); before doing >> that I would ideally like to see some evidence that something has changed >> to warrant us revisiting it. >> >> For tracking purposes, I raised >> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/issues/21 on Thursday 22nd >> March. >> >> Nigel >> >> >> >> On 23/03/2018, 17:21, "David Singer" <singer@mac.com> wrote: >> >> >I¹m in debate with Silvia over the progression of VTT. Do others have >> >opinions? >> > >> >With WhatWG on a firmer footing, much of the original motivation to do a >> >Rec. has evaporated, and at this point looks like a lot of busy work to >> >little reward. Are there people who see it differently? >> > >> >> On Mar 23, 2018, at 3:16 , Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I have edited the TTWG draft charter with the changes agreed during our >> >>TTWG telecon. >> >> Please review the draft charter >> >> >> >> https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/Draft-2018-TTWG-Charter.html >> >> >> >> Deadline is Monday midnight US coast. I will send the charter on >> >>tuesday to W3M for approval, and will request a charter extension. >> >> >> >> Thierry >> >> >> > >> >David Singer >> > >> >singer@mac.com >> > >> >> >
Received on Monday, 26 March 2018 18:27:43 UTC