Re: edited TTWG draft charter, VTT?

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:48 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Silvia,
> 
>> If we fail at that, we send a clear signal that this is a group that has no interest in webvtt, but only in TTML.
> 
> This group includes you, David S. and others that have expressed
> interest in WebVTT.
> 
> Per David S., it sounds like "we just need to close the remaining bugs
> (if any) and I need to finish the transition request."
> 
> What about simply doing this?

Yes, let’s do that.  We got Nigel’s feedback on those recently, and Silvia and Nigel are diligently converging. I don’t see any a priori reason why we shouldn’t be able to approve the CR transition and move ahead.

> 
> Best,
> 
> -- Pierre
> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The level of support for webvtt in this group is a problem of the W3C
>> management who suggested this would be the right environment to take webvtt
>> through to REC. If we fail at that, we send a clear signal that this is a
>> group that has no interest in webvtt, but only in TTML. That's fine, but
>> don't call this the group that has an interest in all things video
>> accessibility then.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Silvia.
>> 
>> On Tue., 27 Mar. 2018, 6:20 am 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. You should not expect
>>> those who are not committed to WebVTT to carry the water.  Find one company
>>> willing to invest in the project at a level that matters, and your problem
>>> is solved.
>>> 
>>> 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

singer@mac.com

Received on Monday, 26 March 2018 20:04:20 UTC