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

I can't speak to the genesis of this effort to liaise from the IG to TTWG.
But it seems like a good idea to express the needs of the IG to other
affected W3C groups, independent of whatever course the other group may
currently be on.

I was concerned about the word "requirements" since the normal use of that
word is a set of things that ALL MUST be conformed to.  For example, when
you analyzed 608/708, you came away with a set of things that timed text ALL
MUST meet. This is different from creating a list of options any one of
which might meet the needs.  Hence my proposed alternative wording which I
think meets the intent of the IG.

I can't speak for the TTWG as a whole, but it is my view that it remains
unclear exactly what strategy(ies) will be undertaken in TTWG - we have not
really discussed it in detail.  Therefore, any input or preferred approaches
expressed by another W3C group with TT needs would be valuable. I think I am
safe in saying that TTWG will not undertake ALL the strategies listed in the
IG draft.



-----Original Message-----
From: Silvia Pfeiffer [] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:51 PM
To: Vickers, Mark
Cc: Michael Dolan; <>
Subject: Re: [tt] Updated draft input to the proposed revision of Timed Text
WG charter

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Vickers, Mark
<> 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.


Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 14:11:04 UTC