Re: [profile] Profile spec title

Sorry, Giuseppe, I fail to get your point.

I thought we were talking about the title and not the scope of the
"spec".  But if we start talking about the scope, it is ok too, as it
is related to the title as well.

Please find my comments in-line below, marked with [MK]:

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:13:33 +0100, Masahito Kawamori
> <masahito.kawamori@ties.itu.int> wrote:
>
> Maybe we should take one step back as suggested by John and make sure we
> agree on the scope of this work.
> While resource limited devices are for sure on of the main targets, there is
> a "functional" part of the profile that is applicable to all kind of
> devices.
>
> As I see it we have the following main components:
> 1. performance based profile: how to measure performances of some
> technologies (e.g. CSS animations) and how to profile out support for such
> technologies based on a minimal performance requirement.
> 2. content adaptation: which technologies needs to be supported in order to
> enable applications that can easily self adapt to the widest range of
> devices (tablets, PCs, TVs, Blueray discs, etc). This cover thing like CSS
> media queries but also discussion about different input paradigms (remote
> control, pointer based, touch)
> 3. Formats: are there widely adopted formats (for video, audio, images) that
> you would need to support to be interoperable?
> 4. Protocols and platform capabilities: I do I get access to the needed
> information from the underlying protocols (and do I need to get access to
> them?). This covers things like adaptive streaming, drm, metadata associated
> with the stream.
>
> So in short I think we have 50% performance related requirements (so mostly
> valid for ce devices) and 50% functional requirements (applicable to all
> devices)
>

[MK] I am sorry Giuseppe. I don't understand. You mentioned four
components and only one of them mentions performance. Where did you
get the 50%?  Is it 25%, maybe?

> Is there any agreement that this is the scope? If so, is this well
> refelected in the current draft (and if not, what should we change?
> I think the following section would benefit from people review:
>
> Design Goals
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html#design-goals
>
> Scope
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html#scope
>

[MK] OK. Let's take these into account, and see if we can agree.

> Given the variety of opinions, I still think the provisional title+subtitle
> we have now is good.

[MK] The problem is, we don't have "the"  title+subtitle, but we had
two that you proposed. There was the third, proposed by me.
Which one do you propose as the one that captures the opinions?   And
by the way, none of the four components you mentioned above
specifically refers to "interactive video services".  Why do you think
this summarizes the four components you mention?

> The only alternative to "TV" I can come up with to reflect our community is
> "Commercial Video Services".

[MK] Again, I don't quite understand your point. Do you mean the
profile excludes "public video services"?  Does "TV", in your
rephrasing, exclude BBC or EBU?

I thought we, in the olden days of 2010 and at the first workshop in
Tokyo, started out with the idea that "TV" does not any more mean just
"video" services. c.f.  <http://www.w3.org/2010/09/web-on-tv/>.

But then again, if the primary target of this IG has already been
restricted enough, and the video service with interactivity is what we
need to profile (first), then we can have "Web and TV Profile--
Guidelines for integration of interactive video services in a
browser-based environment", but also "Web and TV Profile-- Guidelines
for integration of web-technologies for resource limited devices". We
may need to create other profiles, if it is necessary.

Cheers

Masahito


> But I think that making it clear in the text (rather than in the title)
> would be enough.
>
>
> /g
>
>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Masahito
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Scott Wilson
>> <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 Feb 2012, at 10:25, Masahito Kawamori wrote:
>>>
>>>> Giuseppe, all
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree.  (but then again, the question may remain, "hasn't that been
>>>> the intention of HTML5 <video>?". Well, it is ok for the time being,
>>>> as a straw man, at least.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes... for me the spec is more like a HTML5 profile for web applications
>>> on CE devices than anything to do with video services.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> possible variation
>>>>>
>>>>> "WebTV profile"
>>>>>
>>>>> Guidelines for integration of interactive video services in a
>>>>> browser-based
>>>>> environment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would not probably work, as pointed out by Yusuke.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Masahito
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> /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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Giuseppe Pascale
> TV & Connected Devices
> Opera Software
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 12:58:08 UTC