RE: [profile] Profile spec title

+1

Please excuse brevity. Sent from a mobile device.

John C. Simmons | Media Platform Architect | Microsoft Corporation | direct 425-707-2911 | mobile 425-269-5759
________________________________
From: Vickers, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 6:35 PM
To: Dewa, Yoshiharu (OSAKI)
Cc: Glenn Adams; Giuseppe Pascale; public-web-and-tv@w3.org; GAUSMAN, PAUL
Subject: Re: [profile] Profile spec title

+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