RE: [profile] Profile spec title

I understand that HTML5 is the focus on the work in webtv IG and we have SVG as a side focus. There is agreement in SVG WG that there shall be an alignment of video tag support between HTML5 and SVG. To be representative of the industry I would not limit the profile to only HTML5 but also SVG. Suggest not to tie the title to HTML5. As to the scope we can focus on the HTML5 but not to exclude SVG.

Regards,
JanL 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com] 
> Sent: den 8 februari 2012 09:49
> To: Jan Lindquist; Vickers, Mark
> Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG
> Subject: Re: [profile] Profile spec title
> 
> 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 09:29:22 UTC