<scribe> scribe: Silvia

Topic 1: Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

action-99?

<trackbot> ACTION-99 -- Janina Sajka to annotate 9452 with clear audio discovery and selection, as well as independent control of multiple playback tracks -- due 2011-01-19 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/99

delayed since Janina is not available today

may possibly overlap with the multitrack proposals

judy: are there any issues that we have that require change proposals - cut-off date is tonight

JF + silvia: probably not

scribe: action-99 overlaps a lot with issue-152

Topic 2: Issue-152 Multitrack API http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0079.html

JF: where do we stand?

are we able to get another change proposal to counter the existing one before the deadline for counter proposals?

this is the march 22nd deadline

Eric: definitely

Silvia: yes, I am definitely going to work on another 2-3 change proposals as well

Eric: I am not sure how we will get to concensus

… but Dave Singer and I have a definite idea how this should work and we will at least put in this change proposal

Judy: that's great news to hear the clarification that you have a clear proposal coming up to offer

silvia: Philip seems to have a clear idea on how to do it, so maybe another change proposal
... the HTTP adaptive streaming proponents have a clear idea and there will be another one from there
... next steps are now clear from the schedule of issue handling
... not sure if there is a possibility of the chair moving this to a last call issue

JF: after all the change proposals come in there will be a call for concensus

Judy: I would be concerned if this would be moved to a last call issue, because it will be damaging to a11y

Eric: it would be good to discuss this at the F2F

JF: who will be there?

Sean and Eric will be there

Silvia is trying to get it organised

JF: this is good because it is shortly before the April 22nd deadline

Eric: will Frank be there?

Frank: not decided yet, but would like to be there

Silvia: is there a means for the F2F to have a focused subgroup on media?

JF: possibly, there is no agenda at this stage

… I think central meetings make sense, and then have break-out groups

Judy: we don't want to double-purpose the meeting, in particular for people like Janina that need to be in the main meeting

… maybe in sequence with the PF work would work

scribe: do people think it needs a full 2 days of discussion?

Silvia: I think so

Eric: it's hard to predict
... depends on what we do between now and then

Judy: maybe we can crystallize specific issues in the larger group and then send off a smaller break-out group for detailed engineering

… depends on W3C's plan for the meeting, but maybe we can organize to have our issue focused at the start

… or we could start on Friday evening with a warm-up

JF: is this a TF F2F or a PFWG F2F?

… everyone will want to drill into their specific issues at some point, e.g. Canvas etc

<judy_> judy thinks it may indeed be a TF F2F

<judy_> JF: do we have any common ground on 152 now?

<judy_> EC: yes, some. including the Microsoft proposal. The proposals just going about it in diff ways.

<janina> Suggest we look for ways to open a discussion with ISO--rather than going independently forward

<judy_> JF: we seem to have a short term plan. anything more to do on this today?

<judy_> EC: worth discussing in email. narrow approaches before discussion at CSUN TF meeting.

<judy_> janina -- the san diego meeting, is it PFWG, or TF?

<janina> TF

<judy_> we want to do some media stuff on sat morn, is that ok? w/ the tf mtg?

<judy_> qu to janina above

<janina> Absolutely. Critical to have thorough conversations on that

judy: JF, please let Michael know that we want a big media focus on the meeting

<judy_> [janina: then the media folks may break out & do detailed stuff on the side.]

<janina> Yes

<janina> That might mean two rooms?

JF: what is happening with FCC VPAAC?

Judy: there was a VPAAC meeting this afternoon of WG 3 and the one mostly related to our questions is in WG 1

<JF> Janina yes, I will contact Michael Cooper and advise

Judy: I requested a confirmation from the chairs and there is no meeting for WG 1 scheduled yet
... delayed because of the Oscars actually
... wanted to make them fully aware that there are two specs and encourage more discussions about it
... there also seems to be something happening at ISO

silvia: what is the ISO related stuff?

Judy: it's about a potentially copyrighted piece of work that is related

Silvia: sounds like this is about DASH, which is related to HTTP adaptive streaming

JF: and thus circles back to Issue-152
... is there anything that this group can do to help FCC VPAAC in their work?

<janina> Will VPAAC deal with Issue-152-type questions?

<janina> PS: I'm working on getting us official copies/linkage to ISO/IEC SC29 WG 11 re Issue-152

Judy: I don't think they will particularly deal with multitrack, but more about formats

… it's advisory, not prescriptive

silvia: just to clarify - are they not going to put out a requirement for vendors to support a particular format?

<janina> They may need to be perscriptive to some degree--to make sure that content and equipment are creating to the same standards??

Judy: detail on the implementation questions are not fully clear yet

Eric: Geoff said in email that even if it wasn't prescriptive, their choice of format(s) would have that kind of effect

Judy: yes, very likely

JF: seems we need to monitor this issue

Judy: keeping the discussions here moving in a timely way would help immensely the work at FCC VPAAC
... this is why I am concerned if we cannot make headway on the multitrack work
... it would be good to clarify here within W3C whether we will focus on WebVTT or support TTML/SMPTE-TT as well

JF: is there something we need to do wrt TimedTracks that we haven't accomplished yet?

Judy: we need to narrow down the multitrack options as quickly as possible
... and get something filed as much in advance

JF: just to clarify - the multitrack API issue is the one where we have some competing proposals
... but that has nothing directly to do with the caption formats

<janina> Can we not use "caption" fpor all the texted alternative formats?

sorry, Janina - caption format seems to be what the FCC is about, which is why I used that term in this case

<janina> We may need to get them to fix their language, too! <grin>

but you are right of course

<janina> I've ben having that same conversation here in ISO SC35 today

JF: for the FCC VPAAC, my take is that our group thinks that WebVTT meets a lot of requirements, and SMPTE-TT meets a lot of requirements, neither meets all

… so that is probably all we can give the FCC VPAAC at this time

<judy_> [judy clarifies in response to john, above, i understand that there are two questions on the table. the timing issue is common to both. the narrowing options is specific to multitrack.]

JF: any other business?

<janina> We can also say amatuer, small media adopters tend toward the SRT derivative, while industry is moving toward SYMPT

silvia: I am wondering if Judy and Janina can report on their discussions at ISO on what is related to our work?

Judy: I don't think any of the discussions today were related to media

<janina> Better Judy--I'm trying to be involved here--and also in my SC35 meeting!

Judy: maybe Janina can do a report

silvia: seems she is rather busy, maybe on the next call

<janina> Definitely next call

JF: or via email - she is in London next week
... we have lots of work to do till March 22nd, but right now we don't seem to have further need to discuss today

Judy: question to Eric - when do you think your change proposal will be ready?

<janina> Short Story: We're setting up mutual liaison relationships. Judy is W3C liaison to SC35, I'm probably going to be SC35 liaison to W3C

Eric: if there is a need, we can probably have it done in 2 weeks

note for minutes: ISO SC35 is about User interfaces, see http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee.html?commid=45382

JF: I think our time currently could be more productively used in discussions than in writing competing change proposals
... hopefully we can write a common change proposal in the F2F that we can all agree on
... rather than too many competing change proposals right now

Eric: I agree, discussions around the wiki page that silvia set up are most productive now

<janina> Terrific!

JF: thanks everyone for this short call - keep discussing!

rssagent, set logs world-visible

rssagent, generate minutes

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/issue-99/action-99/
Succeeded: s/great news/great news to hear the clarification that you have a clear proposal coming up to offer/
Succeeded: s/WAI F2F/PFWG F2F/
Found Scribe: Silvia
Inferring ScribeNick: silvia

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: John_Foliot, Judy, +54558aaaa, Eric_Carlson, Silvia, [Microsoft]
Present: John_Foliot Judy +54558aaaa Eric_Carlson Silvia [Microsoft]

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 23 Feb 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report