Web and TV Interest Group Teleconference

21 May 2013


See also: IRC log


Kaz, Pierre, Glenn, Jean-Charles, Mark_Vickers, Olivier


<Mark_Vickers> pierre: Agenda: 1. meeting time. 2. TTWG Charter 3. Testing project

Revised TTWG charter

<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

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 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

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Pierre to draft position statement and post to email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/21-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/05/21 14:23:43 $