W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [tt] Updated draft input to the proposed revision of Timed Text WG charter

From: Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:02:40 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>, "<public-web-and-tv@w3.org>" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3ACE4D06-39A1-4623-9507-194DD84F7588@cable.comcast.com>
On Jun 4, 2013, at 8:28 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> I still don't quite follow.
> We've come up with a set of requirements that are all good and fine
> and that are also underlying principles of how the the new charter was
> written.
> We're in a situation where a charter has been proposed - not in one
> where we need to provide input on how to write one and what strategies
> it should follow.l

Perhaps I'm confused (as usual), but I don't see a new TTWG Charter on my AC My Questionnaires page for my vote, so I was assuming this wasn't yet a final Staff proposal to the AC for a vote, but a draft that could take input. If it's a Staff proposal to the AC for a vote, then I agree with your point. 

Perhaps a Staff member can enlighten us?

> Fortunately, our set of requirements and the proposed charter are in
> agreement and one of the (3) "possible viable strategies" that we've
> come up with is indeed the one that the new TTWG charter is following.
> What is our intention with sending this document to the TTWG? What do
> we expect them to do with it, other than say "that's nice and we agree
> and we've already done what you're proposing" and then move on?
> Regards,
> Silvia.
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Vickers, Mark
> <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> I  agree with Mike that his phrasing correctly reflects that these are a list of possible viable strategies, not a list of requirements.
>> Perhaps the real "requirement" for the Charter is that the TTML group, including both spec efforts, adopts some version of the overriding goal in item (2) to "maximize the consistency between the authored Timed Text and the rendered Timed Text".
>> The item (3) "possible viable strategies" are then in the context of this agreed goal. If the goal can be met by a strategy outside of the suggested ones, that's also fine.
>> Thanks,
>> mav
>> On Jun 4, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Pierre and all-
>>> Sorry I was unable to join the call.  Regarding:
>>>      The Web & TV IG recommends the following requirements for W3C Timed
>>> Text efforts:
>>> In discussions offline, I understand that the enumeration is more of a list
>>> of possible viable strategies, not a list of requirements - all of which
>>> must be met as is implied.  Meeting all of these "requirements" may not be
>>> possible or necessary depending on the use cases and requirements that
>>> emerge.  If my understanding is accurate, then I propose the above sentence
>>> be changed to:
>>>      The Web & TV IG recommends that the W3C Timed Text Working Group
>>> investigate the following harmonization strategies:
>>> Regards,
>>>      Mike
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux [mailto:pal@sandflow.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:26 AM
>>> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
>>> Subject: [tt] Updated draft input to the proposed revision of Timed Text WG
>>> charter
>>> Good morning/evening,
>>> Please find at [1] the output of our call earlier today -- thanks to Mark
>>> Vickers for the live editing.
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/TTWG_Consensus_Input
>>> Please indicate your concerns/comments on this reflector or at the bottom of
>>> the wiki page.
>>> Unless significant concerns are raised, the text is intended to be made
>>> available as consensus input of this group to the proposed revision of Timed
>>> Text WG charter.
>>> Best,
>>> -- Pierre
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 01:03:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:16 UTC