- 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