Re: edited TTWG draft charter, VTT?

> I think that a label from the W3C (“Rec.”) may be not that important to
them.

Then the issue is solved, is it not?

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:31 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:20 , David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don’t think it very constructive to get into a comparison argument
> of the two specifications.
> >
> > The only thing I am comparing is the level of support.  TTML2/IMSC2 has
> broad industry support with many organizations willing to invest time and
> money to move the work forward.  WebVTT does not.
>
> OK, you do want an unproductive discussion, so be it.
>
> VTT is supported in all major browsers; TTML is not, and probably never
> will be.
>
> With the exception of Regions, the support for VTT is remarkably complete
> and consistent. TTML dialects slide through the ’N implementatuins’
> requirement because there are M>N candidate implementations, and for any
> given feature, you can cherry-pick which implementations support it
> correctly; so for any row in the table (row==feature) there are indeed 3
> green check-marks — but there’s no solid consistent set of columns which
> support the basic feature set interoperably. The amount of red, last time I
> checked, was extraordinary.
>
> Yes, a lot of committees endorse TTML dialects — W3C, EBU, SMPTE, and so
> on — but rather fewer engineers. The opposite is true for VTT.
>
> I have repeatedly asked where TTML is achieving ‘blind interoperability’ —
> where TTML-dialect files are being written without knowing or caring which
> client will play them. This is tthe major function of a public
> specification, and so far, I have not heard of a good answer. (Both the BBC
> and Netflix’s use of TTML (iPlayer and the Netflix player) are effectively
> closed ecosystems, where the player is provided by the same company as is
> authoring the files.)
>
> > You should not expect those who are not committed to WebVTT to carry the
> water.
>
> I’m not.
>
> > Find one company willing to invest in the project at a level that
> matters, and your problem is solved.
>
> They’ve implemented and moved on, and I think that a label from the W3C
> (“Rec.”) may be not that important to them.
>
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:09 PM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:
> > I don’t think it very constructive to get into a comparison argument of
> the two specifications. Honestly, they both have problems.
> >
> > The investment in the many implementations of VTT, including in
> browsers, happened years ago, it’s true. There are open-source,
> browser-based, standalone, polyfill and translation implementations. In
> fact, one problem is that people don’t see a need to be involved in formal
> processes after the time when it was all implemented; they’ve implemented
> and moved on.
> >
> > Can we drop this “your spec. is X” line of discussion? I don’t see it
> yielding any useful insights.
> >
> > > On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:04 , David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > thats what Im talking about: the time spent in this group on moving
> WebVTT to CR has been negligible.
> > >
> > > We are all doing the W3C work as representatives of our
> companies/organizations, and you should not be surprised that the
> collective priorities of the participanting individuals and organizations
> is where the time gets spent.  What should concern you is that there are no
> companies/organizations or even individuals that believe that WebVTT is
> important enough to invest time or money in the effort, nor to even join
> the weekly calls.  How can WebVTT move forward with no one willing to do
> the heavy lifting, and why should it?
> > >
> > > >  It has more implementations and complete features than the very
> first time TTML went to CR
> > >
> > > What happened 10 years ago is not relevant.  TTML2 and IMSC2 will have
> multiple independent implementations of every feature.  Included in this is
> the open source TTT rendering project.  This is years of collective effort
> and many millions of dollars invested by many organizations to see this
> through.  Again going to my previous comments.  The WebVTT problem is that
> there are no companies/organizations willing to make a similar investment
> in WebVTT to complete the project.  It is not unreasonable, therefore, to
> conclude that the collective industry has decided that WebVTT is no longer
> relevant, and moved on.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Pierre,
> > >
> > > thats what Im talking about: the time spent in this group on moving
> > > WebVTT to CR has been negligible. All the effort has been done by
> > > others outside the group. This group was tasked with a transition it
> > > basically has no interest in.
> > >
> > > And about exit criteria: this is the first CR of WebVTT. It has more
> > > implementations and complete features than the very first time TTML
> > > went to CR - there's no way you can compare the status of the two
> > > specifications at first CR and not see this difference.
> > >
> > > I am not angry about this - it is what it is. I'd just like the
> > > decision to be made.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Silvia.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:26 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux
> > > <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > David Singer
> >
> > singer@mac.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>