See also: IRC log
<Mark_Vickers> pierre: Agenda: 1. meeting time. 2. TTWG Charter 3. Testing project
<olivier> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2013AprJun/0136.html
<pal_> 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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2013May/0082.html
Mark_Vickers: more important than this vs that architecture
<glenn> 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.
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_> 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.
... for example TTML ability to specifiy feature priority
... if WebVTT is kept as a subset of TTML, that would maximize
interop
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
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 http://www.w3.org/2013/05/21-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'Pierre'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/users>.
Kaz's note: I've just created the following action item manually. https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/114
<glenn> trackbot, end meeting