Re: [tt] minutes - 21 May 2013

Hi Silvia,

Thanks for the input. Will you be able to join us on our scheduled
Thursday call?

> 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.

Based on Glenn's input, has the understanding substantially changed?
In any event, any chance the technical underpinnings of that
understanding can be documented [ed.: I, for one, have yet to see
technical evidence that WebVTT has broader applicability that TTML]?

> They are likely orthogonal in some features, which cannot be mapped
> to each other, but can map for others.

Similarly, do you have concrete examples? The latter will be needed to
make technical progress in my mind.

Thanks,

-- Pierre

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 Monday, 27 May 2013 16:35:36 UTC