- From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:03:14 -0700
- To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Cc: Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
> 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