- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:47:41 +1000
- To: ashimura@w3.org
- Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:
> available at:
> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/21-webtv-minutes.html
>
> also as text below.
>
> Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Mark Vickers!
>
> Please note that I've added the action item from this call
> to Tracker as ACTION-114 at:
> https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/114
>
> Kazuyuki
>
> ---
> [1]W3C
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
> - DRAFT -
>
> Web and TV Interest Group Teleconference
>
> 21 May 2013
>
> [2]Agenda
>
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013May/0020.html
>
> See also: [3]IRC log
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/05/21-webtv-irc
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
> Kaz, Pierre, Glenn, Jean-Charles, Mark_Vickers, Olivier
>
> Regrets
> Chair
> Pierre
>
> Scribe
> Mark
>
> Contents
>
> * [4]Topics
> 1. [5]Revised TTWG charter
> 2. [6]Meeting time
> * [7]Summary of Action Items
> __________________________________________________________
>
> <Mark_Vickers> pierre: Agenda: 1. meeting time. 2. TTWG Charter
> 3. Testing project
>
> Revised TTWG charter
>
> <olivier>
> [8]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2013AprJun
> /0136.html
>
> [8]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2013AprJun/0136.html
>
> <pal_> [9]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/timed-text-charter.html
>
> [9] http://www.w3.org/2013/05/timed-text-charter.html
>
> <inserted> scribenick: Mark_Vickers
>
> Pierre: The main addition to the charter is WebVTT
> ... There seems to be support in the TTWG, but some opposition
> on AC list discussion. Can the Web & TV industry provide some
> direction.
>
> Olivier: One thing that could be useful is to point to adoption
> of both specs. Both specs have wide adoption. AC statements
> that TTML is irrelevant & noxious are concerning.
>
> Pierre: TTML has had great adoption. It is the responsibility
> of W3C to harmonize the two.
>
> Glenn: Harmonize implies merging into one. I expect both will
> exist. I think it will be good for both to be in one group.
> There has been much misinformation on TTML, for example on XSL.
> Having both in one group will decrease partisanship.
> ... Cox has asked for specific language in the charter asking
> for a level playing field and support of both.
>
> <inserted> scribenick: olivier
>
> Mark_Vickers: we've had too much of a focus on tech issues, not
> enough IMHO on doing what's best for people with hearing
> impairments
>
> <glenn>
> [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2013May/0082.
> html
>
> [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2013May/0082.html
>
> Mark_Vickers: more important than this vs that architecture
>
> <glenn>
> [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2013May/0087.
> html
>
> [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2013May/0087.html
>
> Mark_Vickers: in that regard fewer specs would be better than
> more
> ... would be good to see all TTML variants pulled into one
> ... and make sure we can maximally map the semantics between
> the two, if there are to be more than one spec
> ... if there can't be a mapping, we would lose information
>
> <kaz> scribenick: Mark_Vickers
>
> glenn: Do you think it's realistic that one community will give
> up one sntax?
>
> olivier: I don't think that it's realistic for there to be one
> spec given current usage.
>
> mark_vickers: I agree it's unlikely to be one spec, but I think
> it's worth stating that it's an ideal.
>
> glenn: I don't agree with a single spec notion because I think
> it's impractical and causes more trouble.
> ... I agree it's important to serve the community for captions,
> both hearing and hearing-impaired.
>
> Pierre: What about the goal of maximizing semantic
> compatibility?
>
> glenn: To some degree. The goals of TTML were broader, for
> example in the use of SMIL. I wouldn't expect WebVTT to adopt
> that.
Right. You're still able to put SMIL and whatever else into WebVTT
cues, but they won't be interpreted by a browser natively.
> Pierre: But to the amount that one is a semantic superset of
> the other>
>
> mark_vickers: what about when semantics cannot be mapped?
>
> glenn: browsers need to support both formats
> ... The superset format can be mapped, but some information
> will be lost.
>
> <pal_> [12]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Timed_Text_Efforts
>
> [12] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Timed_Text_Efforts
>
> pierre: Would it be worth sharing the TF list of adoption of
> TTML & WebVTT to show adoption of both?
> ... Can we come up with a requirement that all are happy?
>
> glenn: it would be useful to identify the caption communities
>
> olivier: the audio group has a hierarchy of developer,
> implementor, spec maker. In the case of timed text: user,
> author, implementor, spec maker
>
> glenn: I'd order user, author first, but whether implementor or
> spec maker is first is unclear
>
> olivier: an example is if something is tedious to specify, but
> important for implementors, you need to do the spec
>
> glenn: I see the order as user, {author, implementor, spec
> maker} with the latter an unoredered list
>
> pierre: I think author is a priority over the latter two
>
> glenn: How about user, author, {`implementor, spec maker}?
>
> <olivier> "ensure maximal interop"?
>
> pierre: Some progress on community. How do we get to agreement
> on the points on mapping?
>
> olivier: I like maximize semantic mapping
> ... what really worries me is that if the two evolve together,
> there will be mapping from one to the other, but if there's not
> a clear decision of which is a superset, we're in trouble
>
> glenn: I like "Ensure maximal semantic interop"
> ... right now I beliebe WebVTT is a subset of TTML, as far as
> I'm aware.
My understanding is the exact opposite: since TTML only focuses on
captions, but WebVTT on captions, descriptions, metadata, and
chapters, WebVTT has a broader applicability than TTML.
> ... for example TTML ability to specifiy feature priority
Can you explain what "feature priority" means?
> ... if WebVTT is kept as a subset of TTML, that would maximize
> interop
They are likely orthogonal in some features, which cannot be mapped to
each other, but can map for others.
Thanks,
Silvia.
> pierre: that is beyond the ability of this group,
>
> <pal_> pal's notes:
>
> <pal_> - need to provide better information
>
> <pal_> - minimize profiles
>
> <pal_> - user, author, {implementer, spec maker}
>
> <pal_> - ensure maximal semantic interop (one format might be a
> superset of the other)
>
> glenn: Perhaps just state one could be superset of another
>
> Meeting time
>
> pierre: 8AM Los Angeles time on Thursdays
> ... What about 30th for next call?
>
> everybody nods
>
> <scribe> ACTION: Pierre to draft position statement and post to
> email [recorded in
> [13]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/21-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
>
> <trackbot> Error finding 'Pierre'. You can review and register
> nicknames at <[14]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/users>.
>
> [14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/users%3E.
>
> Kaz's note: I've just created the following action item
> manually. [15]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/114
>
> [15] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/114
>
> <glenn> trackbot, end meeting
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> [NEW] ACTION: Pierre to draft position statement and post to
> email [recorded in
> [16]http://www.w3.org/2013/05/21-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
>
> [End of minutes]
> __________________________________________________________
>
>
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
> 1.138 ([18]CVS log)
> $Date: 2013-05-21 14:23:43 $
>
> [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
> [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
>
> --
> Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
> Tel: +81 466 49 1170
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 06:48:37 UTC