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

Re: Interactive Television

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:56:25 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kFvHCbg7hPbm9mJFTWDz9cUu2po538MgNA_by6Rg464w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Hi Adam,

what you are suggesting is already possible with the current
specification of <track> and a @kind=metadata and the xml or json
included in a WebVTT file's cues. We just need to wait until the
browsers have actually implemented and released it.

That's why I was more curious to find out if we have any more specific
application needs that actually require standardisation and suggested
analysing them.

I think what Bob is doing sounds very interesting in this context.
ETV, ads and parental control are indeed interesting use cases. Bob:
do you have more information on these and specification proposals?

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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 Friday, 12 August 2011 00:57:21 UTC

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