- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:51:22 +1000
- To: "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- Cc: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>, "<public-web-and-tv@w3.org>" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > 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. I agree with everything you have said and so does the proposed new charter of the TTWG. This is why I am asking: what are we trying to achieve with the draft statement? For example: do we want a more explicit inclusion of the above statements in the charter? Is that the idea? I'm just struggling with what we are trying to achieve apart from making an obivous statement. Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 04:52:14 UTC