W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > August 2011

RE: Interactive Television

From: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:33:47 +0000
Message-ID: <SNT138-W50FE7F584EC4DDA4E256AFC5220@phx.gbl>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>

Silvia Pfeiffer,
 
With regard to the HTML5 video track ideas, I disagree with the indicated approach of analyzing exact needs and use cases first; the benefits that the particular concepts bring to HTML5 video tracks are sufficiently broad and general use that an exact needs and use cases approach seems suboptimal.  The best option is both XML and JSON.  Browser teams already have both XML and JSON parsers and libraries handy and some data structures and heuristics might be reusable between XML and JSON implementations for the described <track/> object.  I like the extensiblity of XML and what I like about the JSON approach is the convenient JavaScript syntax in the callback functions.
I previously forwarded the XML ideas to the HTML5 working group.  Perhaps you can send an email describing the JSON <track/> idea to the HTML5 video working group.
Annotation as the kind for post-produced overlays sounds worthwhile.  I agree that exploring use cases on that makes sense.  That could include an automation of some DHTML premises and perhaps some XAML concepts. 
Kind regards,
Adam Sobieski

 > From: silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:08:33 +1000
> Subject: Re: Interactive Television
> To: adamsobieski@hotmail.com
> CC: scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com; public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> 
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Silvia,
> >
> > I like the idea about a new kind or kinds, possibly "xml" and/or "json".
> > Those could be catchalls for usage scenarios beyond the other kinds of
> > subtitles, captions, descriptions, chapters and metadata. Another possible
> > kind is outlines which resembles chapters.
> 
> Metadata is already a catch-all. I think we first need to analyse what
> exact needs / use cases we have before making a decision.
> 
> 
> > Your example about DHTML overlays with hyperlinks sounds interesting; DHTML
> > overlays are possible wherever text and graphics presently occur atop video
> > from video post-production techniques and new enhanced features are possible
> > with hypertext. Video post-production techniques can make use HTML5 video
> > capabilities, DHTML and overlays and so doing might provide for entirely new
> > features.
> 
> We should then consider asking for a @kind=annotation and specify this
> use case some further. Also JSON may not necessarily the best solution
> for this use case. We should experiment with JavaScript first. This
> way we can identify the best possible solution.
> 
> > I think that more kinds alleviates a misunderstanding that under discussion
> > was some sort of alternative to WebVTT. WebVTT seems apt for its set of
> > kinds and could even be of use in convergence scenarios such as digital
> > cable. New kinds for HTML5 video tracks, "xml" and/or "json", can allow for
> > more Flash-like functionality with HTML5. By specifying an XML format with
> > at least attributes for temporal intervals, any XML that makes use of that
> > XMLNS could include time synchronization data that <track/> expects.
> 
> Yes, WebVTT is designed to be a general container for
> time-synchronized data. But as I said: we should analyse the use cases
> in more detail and come up with better means of semantically labelling
> the included data than by format.
> 
> > With regard to HTML5 video, it seems that new kinds are exciting to discuss.
> 
> Very much so!
> 
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
 		 	   		  
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 15:34:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:07 UTC