See also: IRC log
<janina> agenda: this
<janina> Hi, Silvia, yes, please join #htmla
<scribe> scribe: silvia
gah, we are missing trackbot
sorry, I'm wrong
<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)
<plh> trackbot, associate this channel with #html-a11y
<trackbot> Associating this channel with #html-a11y...
<trackbot> ACTION-88 -- Sean Hayes to review Media Fragment URI 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100624/ -- due 2010-11-24 -- OPEN
after reviewing the long list of requirements last week on http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Mapping_to_Requirements in became apparent that we need a short summary that we can use as a basis for recommendation
John has started preparing this in the above document
this may become the basis for the potential chartering of a new working group
it should lead to a work plan for the new working group
(this was Janina)
geoff: is there a timeline?
janina: it would be good if we can conclude it this week - it is a lot of desire to move quickly
geoff: I can help
silvia: I am working on several inputs from diverse parties towards missing features around captions etc
... I wonder what the urgency is
plh: seems to be a lack of coordination between the a11y WG and the HTML WG
... the HTML WG has an action item to investigate WebSRT further
... I don't want to have work on multiple formats for the same problem solution
janina: what we're not ready to say in this group is that we are perfectly comfortable with WebSRT to the exclusion of TTML
geoff: I agree - but given the statement of the browser vendors to support WebSRT, the question is whether we should spend time on TTML
janina: I am not clear whether all browser vendors object to TTML
… it sounds to me like MS may use WebSRT
sean: they will not oppose a common solution, but that doesn't mean they will oppose TTML
janina: I think I also heard there will be support from Adobe for TTML
… and others may announce this support, too
<Sean> what I said is that IE want a common solution, and will do webSRT if that is it
<Sean> that does not imply opposition to TTML
<Sean> k. well just being clear
silvia: if the browser have decided to support WebSRT, does it make sense for W3C to focus just on that
janina: well, we know that it doesn't yet provide for all needs
<Sean> when it is a W3C soec
geoff: when it's in w3c, we can get it into shape
<Sean> besides we dont have to wait for browser mftrs to do TTML
janina: I am uncomfortabel until I see solutions
<gfreed> nice demo.
silvia: it's not quite true there are no implementations for websrt
… there are implementations like the one above
<Sean> yayquery demo not working in IE9
janina: are we ready to make a recommendation for something that hasn't proven to work for all our requirements?
silvia: I have added examples in the gap analysis for how to do it now or how to fix it
… if we get control of websrt, we can make it support all needs
janina: what is the feeling in the group?
sean: if TTML is not allowed to win, then what's the point?
geoff: I agree - making a recommendation by us doesn't seem to make much sense
plh: we need input from this group soon before decisions are being made in the html wg
janina: so what recommendation are we going to make?
geoff: it just doesn't seem like TTML is going to go anywhere here, so we should probably move with websrt or rather an improved version of it
kenny: do we have a clear indication from browser vendors that they will not support TTML?
janina: we heard it from a couple
kenny: can we do a quick check with the browser vendors?
<gfreed> geoff makes this recommendation reluctantly.
silvia: I think the indications we got from the vendors was very clear
Mozilla, Safari, Opera in particular
kenny_j: we should ask for official responses
… we don't have formal statements about what they are prepared to implement
janina: also if they are ready to provide the engineering resources to fix the gaps
plh: another way of doing this is to point out the gaps and that websrt needs to support these for us to make a recommendation
janina: identifying the gaps is important
<kenny_j> I need to drop off the call now. Janina, I will call you in half an hour.
silvia: we don't make the decision, so we can extend John's page and say that givne these things are fixed, we are happy to accept either format
plh: or we can propose to create a WG that will sort out those issues
<kenny_j> If we have a clear statement from the browser vendors that they will support web srt going forward + the additional features we introduce, then web srt is the logical choice.
geoff: I feel we are going to end up with a non-xml version of TTML
<kenny_j> bye all.
geoff: it will add a lot of time to the process
... in the meantime the caption world will move forward
sean: TTML is already done
geoff: a single format would be preferrable
plh: it is not clear to me if the html wg wants to point to one single format
… only if we want a single format do we have to push the HTML WG towards that
sean: the track format is the most important thing - the rest can be left open
silvia: I think we need a common baseline format supported by all browsers
sean: we can decouple the decision on what is the baseline format and what we standardize
… we don't want to hold up the HTML5 spec by insisting on a baseline format
plh: we need some recommendation to the HTML WG
… my fear is that the two groups are out of sync
janina: do we agree that a high level summary/gap analysis document would be good to return to the HTML WG
silvia: I'd be happy with that
geoff: if a WebSRT group is chartered, we will want to make sure that the requirements are met
janina: a new requirement just evolved in the mailing list on how to synchronize chunks binary and text
… if text and audio chunks are being synchronized at very different locations in the code, I am concerned whether this is smart
eric: I don't understand
<Judy> silvia here it is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0025.html
eric: David Singer sent a concern about what we really want to support in browsers
<JF> is there a different number for calling in? I go to a11y# and am told i am the first to join
geoff: no browser is supporting TTS natively
silvia: the screen reader would support this through the browser's accessibility API, which is already in place
geoff: is it going to be in sync
silvia: it's at a different level - the need to synchronize audio from resources and from TTS is not in the markup level
janina: what about synchronizing sign language and main video synchronization
eric: when the sign language takes longer than the speech, there needs to be some additional information
janina: I am also concerned that everything needs to pause at the same time
silvia: I think that's possible when implemented and controlled by the browser
judy: will we share the summary with the HTML WG?
janina: I think we should do that today
judy: are there edits missing?
... also the request from kenny to ask for positions by browser vendors
… there are foregone conclusions
judy: what will we be saying to the broader html wg and wrt to a Websrt charter?
… there is an urgent timeline
janina: I don't think we have a conclusion on any of these
judy: let's come to an agreement
1. John's summary
judy: do people feel this can be shared with the HTML WG tomorrow?
… my comments are on the mailing list
silvia: I'd like to add a bit more on the websrt side
judy: can we get this done by tomorrow?
plh: we can report to the html wg and give feedback that we are going to provide a document
judy: janina can provide an interim statement
... how will we get it finalized?
janina: if Sean and Silvia simply added their input to the wiki page, that would be ok by me
… I'd rather have the edits directly than lost in emails
judy: can we have the edits by Friday?
geoff: do you want all the comments on the wiki?
janina: keep it terse and at the summary level - no details
… link to the details
2. Kenny's suggestion for vendor positions
judy: is there concensus from the group that this should happen?
… and how we could go about it?
janina: not sure there is concensus - I wonder how difficult it will be to get people on record
plh: let's ask eric :)
eric: committing the company's resources is way above my pay grade ;-)
... I am happy to ask the question to others in the company
silvia: what is the question?
how strongly do the browser vendors feel about a xml based solution?
judy: maybe it's a very sensitive question to answer
eric: if we are going to ask a question, it should not be about xml vs non-xml, but more directly whether a vendor plans implementing support for WebSRT or TTML or both
… whether there is a preference
judy: also whether there is an aversion
geoff: also needs to be about the extensions for websrt
silvia: maybe make a questionnaire with multiple questions
… TTML vs WebSRT
… whether generally XML
… whether support for WebSRT extensions
judy: might be something to raise tomorrow at html wg meeting
janina: might be difficult to summarize tomorrow
judy: we should mention that if websrt is the format, we need extensions
janina: the wider exploration had merit
… taking it all into a separate wg makes a lot of sense
judy: was there a consensus with regard to whether the new wg should be websrt specific or have a wider focus?
silvia: my opinion is the new wg should specifically look at websrt - there's already a wg for ttml
… the decision which format to use is not one that would be done in the wg
judy: there are other needs that go beyond the mere format that need to be resolved
silvia: the more we pack in the longer it will take
<gfreed> i have to hang up-- apologies.
<gfreed> will look for the notes and add my comments.
janina: we are clear on the first question - the second one is still unclear
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/its ot/is it/ Succeeded: s/should the new wg be/was there a consensus with regard to whether the new wg should be/ Found Scribe: silvia Inferring ScribeNick: silvia Default Present: Janina, Geoff_Freed, Sean_Hayes, Kenny_Johar, Plh, +28012aaaa, silvia, Eric_Carlson, Judy Present: Janina Geoff_Freed Sean_Hayes Kenny_Johar Plh +28012aaaa silvia Eric_Carlson Judy Got date from IRC log name: 01 Dec 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/01-htmla-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]