Re: [tt] minutes - 21 May 2013

On May 27, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org<mailto: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!

...

>> >> >ah, i see you are commenting on the recorded minutes; i hadn't actually looked at those until you now cite them; i do recall saying that in the use of SMIL, TTML had structural timing that wasn't in VTT (as far as I'm aware); i don't recall saying the goals of TTML were broader though, so that may have been an incorrect paraphrase by the note taker;

and later

"glenn: I like "Ensure maximal semantic interop"

I do remember saying this in response to a proposal by someone who said this but without using the word "semantic"

   ... right now I beliebe WebVTT is a subset of TTML, as far as
   I'm aware.

I don't recall saying this.

   ... for example TTML ability to specifiy feature priority

I know I didn't say this, since there is no such thing as "specify feature priority" in TTML.

   ... if WebVTT is kept as a subset of TTML, that would maximize
   interop
"

Whether I said this or not, it is true.  However, whether it is (currently) a semantic subset or whether it is desirable to make it so is an open question in my mind.

Mea culpa. I was the scribe and I apparently did a lousy job. I recall that I was well behind the discussion and summarizing from memory while also participating in the discussion. I know I left out many good statements from people in addition to clearly misstating some I did include.

I really apologize if this has caused increased discord amongst the timed text experts. I am personally very much in favor of having both timed text efforts in a single group. I think it's important to have more direct discussion between the experts, including Glenn and Silvia.

Thanks,
Mark Vickers