- From: Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 02:33:31 +0000
- To: "Dewa, Yoshiharu (OSAKI)" <Yoshiharu.Dewa@jp.sony.com>
- CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, "GAUSMAN, PAUL" <pg2483@att.com>
- Message-ID: <3F639709-B465-4001-9464-371FCB2FA82E@cable.comcast.com>
+1 On Mar 7, 2012, at 5:39 PM, "Dewa, Yoshiharu (OSAKI)" <Yoshiharu.Dewa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Yoshiharu.Dewa@jp.sony.com>> wrote: +1 Rgs, -- Yoshiharu From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:34 AM To: Giuseppe Pascale Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org<mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>; GAUSMAN, PAUL Subject: Re: [profile] Profile spec title I was going to suggest something like this, but glad it has been proposed. I would suggest capitalizing Profile also, i.e., "Web Media Profile". On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com<mailto:giuseppep@opera.com>> wrote: On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:50:42 +0100, GAUSMAN, PAUL <pg2483@att.com<mailto:pg2483@att.com>> wrote: Why not: "Web Media profile" Guidelines for integration of interactive media services in a browser-based environment ...and point out the video stuff within the document structure. Sounds good to me as well. Anybody disagree? /g Thanks! -Paul Q me -----Original Message----- From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com<mailto:giuseppep@opera.com>] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 3:00 AM To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org<mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>; david.corvoysier@orange.com<mailto:david.corvoysier@orange.com>; Robin Berjon Subject: Re: [profile] Profile spec title I'm not convinced about the world "platform", it seems to imply a lot more than what we are aiming too. And since guidelines it seems to be used in W3C for a type of documents that is different from our document I'll than propose to stick to "profile". Even though I agree with Robin that profile tend to generate bad feelings, at the end of the day a profile is what we are doing. And anyway I hope people will not judge the book from its cover. Finally, as a more generic alternative for TV I can propose media. So the title would be "Web Media profile" Guidelines for integration of interactive video services in a browser-based environment If nobody disagree I'll use this. Hopefully we can have more discussions on other topics ;) /g On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:27:47 +0100, <david.corvoysier@orange.com<mailto:david.corvoysier@orange.com>> wrote: I wouldn't argue too much on the exact wording unless it explicitly states that the scope of the document is reduced to "resource-limited devices", which is exactly what I want to avoid: the whole point of the document is to improve interoperability, not to create yet another target for service providers ... That said, the following Robin+giuseppe remix would suit me: "Web and TV platform" Guidelines for integration of interactive video services in a browser-based environment David -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 02:34:33 UTC