- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:48:43 +0100
- To: "Jan Lindquist" <jan.lindquist@ericsson.com>, "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:07:12 +0100, Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > The HTML5 spec itself references CSS and other W3C specs, so using the > term "HTML5" doesn't exclude other W3C specs. The reason I suggested the > title > "HTML5 Video Services Profile" > is because it underlines that HTML5 is the central spec. Are others > looking for a spec that doesn't center on HTML5? If so, that's a more > important issue than the title. > From my point of view the question is not if the spec should or should not be centered on HTML5 (I think is a fact that IS centered on html5 and I doubt someone disagree). The question is if it needs to be part of the title. > The even more important issue in the title is changing "TV" to "video > services". Using "TV Profile" strongly implies it's a profile only for > TV devices. "Video Service Profile" or "Profile for Video Services" > makes clear the profile describes what is needed for video services on > any device. > I know that for some people/communities the term TV can be confusing. On the other end I notice that often also web based "video services" tend to use a TV-related terminology, e.g. they are often called (or call themselves) "web TVs". Another example is "YouTube". Having read all the comments so far I still think the best compromise between different opinions is "Web and TV profile" Guidelines for integration of interactive video services in a browser-based environment possible variation "WebTV profile" Guidelines for integration of interactive video services in a browser-based environment /g > Thanks, > mav > > > On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Jan Lindquist wrote: > >> Hi, >> The profile is not only about HTML5 but other W3c standards so it would >> be misleading to have HTML5 in the title. In the spirit of the IG how >> about "web and TV profile". The name of the profile is not as critical >> as knowing the breadth of the areas it should cover. This profile may >> live for a while and it in the context of the industry attempt to >> influence the work in W3C with a clear list of specs that are being >> used and how they may be used. It will become a reference point by >> other standard groups. By using the same name as the IG it can help see >> the relationship. >> Regards, >> JanL >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Vickers, Mark [mailto:Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com] >>> Sent: den 7 februari 2012 15:24 >>> To: Giuseppe Pascale >>> Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG >>> Subject: Re: [profile] Profile spec title >>> >>> How about "HTML5 Video Services Profile"? >>> >>> On Feb 7, 2012, at 3:28 AM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:26:40 +0100, Vickers, Mark >>> <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 5. Title: The goal for me is a profile of HTML5 for video >>> services. There are two differences with "Web&TV Profile". >>>>> - I want to include HTML5 in the title because this is >>> HTML5-related >>>>> and HTM5-centric >>>>> - I don't like including "TV". This continues to cause >>> confusion. It is clearer to describe an HTML5 profile for >>> video services. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't have strong opinions on the title but I would note >>> the following: >>>> - A title should be short ( the subtitle explains a bit >>> more what we are doing). >>>> - I've tried to use the word "TV services" in the subtitle that is >>>> hopefully a bit less confusing (or maybe not?). I have defined this >>>> term as >>>> >>>> "For the purposes of this document a TV service is a >>> commercial video service that may include elements of >>> interactivity and that provides a coherent user experience. >>>> >>>> - while this profile is html5 based this is not only about >>> html5. I'm not against highlighting the HTML5 centric >>> approach but I wouldn't call this "an html5 profile". >>>> >>>> So in short: I'm fine with your comments but I cannot come >>> up with a better title/subtitle. Suggestions are welcome. >>>> >>>> /g >>>> >>>> >>>>> See you on the call. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> mav >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 6:15 AM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> One note: the zakim bridge is overbooked. >>>>>> So just in case we see that people have problem dialing >>> in (in such >>>>>> case please login on IRC and let us know) I set-up this >>> Opera bridge. >>>>>> >>>>>> NOTE: ONLY TO BE USED IF WE SEE THAT ZAKIM DOESN'T WORK >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone bridge details: >>>>>> >>>>>> Conference ID: 33909 >>>>>> Start Date and Time: Monday 06.02.2012 17:00:00 CET/CEST >>>>>> >>>>>> Bridge Numbers: >>>>>> Norway +47 23 69 26 03 >>>>>> USA +1 800 201 4229 (Toll-Free) >>>>>> Poland (Wroclaw) +48 71 719 6099 >>>>>> Poland (Warsaw) +48 22 262 0799 >>>>>> Japan +81 3 5435 8394 >>>>>> Russia +7 812 448 7876 >>>>>> >>>>>> Conference Name: tv profile >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Please contact SysAdmin at +47 23 69 33 60 for assistance. >>>>>> >>>>>> /g >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:06:15 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale >>> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Here the call details for todays call >>>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Profile/Telco) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Schedule: Monday, 16:00Z (=8:00 Pacific, 11:00 Eastern, 17:00 >>>>>>> Europe, 01:00 Korea/Japan) >>>>>>> Phone: US: +1 617 761 6200 or SIP: zakim@voip.w3.org Conference >>>>>>> Code: 26632 IRC channel: #webtv >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And here the Agenda for todays call: >>>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Profile/Agenda_Telco_6/2/2012) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Review of Charter >>>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Profile/Charter) >>>>>>> * Call schedule >>>>>>> * TF tools (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Profile) >>>>>>> * Process >>>>>>> * Initial feedbacks on the draft >>>>>>> (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html) >>>>>>> * AOB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /g >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:00:59 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale >>> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> the poll [1] is now closed and the winner is... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Monday, February 6, 2012 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM UTC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In this first call we will discuss the scope of the TV >>> profile work, how do we want the group to be organized and >>> timeline (if any). >>>>>>>> If you have any other topic you want to add to the >>> agenda let me know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll send around call details ASAP. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] http://doodle.com/h6rfnkrqyi3uinpi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Giuseppe Pascale >>>>>> TV & Connected Devices >>>>>> Opera Software >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Giuseppe Pascale >>>> TV & Connected Devices >>>> Opera Software >>> >>> > -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 08:51:56 UTC