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

I'm sure there is room for wordsmithing. I welcome that. 

The overall point is that the most important goal of W3C timed text efforts should be optimizing the transmission of timed text information from author to user. Spec writing and implementation issues should be secondary.

The problem statement is that the development of two independent, completely uncoordinated timed text specs with similar or identical functionality by the same standards organization is creating inevitable translation burden and translation errors on media distributors that will hurt timed text users.

We are encouraging the TTWG to address these issues in one of several ways. The current path of both specs seems to be to standardize "our" spec in isolation and completely ignoring the existence of the other spec. This will hurt, not help, users of timed text.

If you disagree with that and think that two W3C timed text specs should continue to ignore each other, then fine.  If you agree with the above then please suggest improvements to our draft statement.

mav

On Jun 4, 2013, at 10:18 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Vickers, Mark
> <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> I think you are correct - it is not up for a vote yet and we are able
> to give input. But what I am trying to say is that this far we're not
> being very constructive in our input.
> 
> Sorry for being unclear,
> Silvia.

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 03:26:35 UTC