9673 2010-05-06 21:04:21 +0000 Remove any reference to a specific Time Stamp format for video captioning from the specification at this time 2010-10-04 14:33:26 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED WORKSFORME http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/video.html#websrt a11y, a11ytf, media, outOfScope P3 major under discussion 1 jfoliot ian adrianba cdouble hober0 ian julian.reschke mike mjs philipj public-html-a11y public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking w3c public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 35472 0 jfoliot 2010-05-06 21:04:21 +0000 The specification of a newly minted Time-Stamp format (WebSRT) within the HTML5 Specification is inappropriate and premature at this time. Even though the HTML5 Accessibility Task Force (HTML-A11Y TF) are still gathering requirements, it's already clear the direction in the editor's draft is inadequate. Specifically, this text should NOT be present in the next heartbeat spec release. * This is a newly proposed file format that is not yet fully specified, is untested, has zero implementation history, zero authoring tools and has not been proposed by any known or documented W3C Process. * It has not been proven that the newly minted WebSRT format addresses all known accessibility issues - the needs analysis and requirements document is unknown and/or undocumented. Affected communities (both end users, as well as content creators) have not been adequately canvassed to ensure that their needs are being met. * It is likely that creating and defining a new Time Stamp format is out of scope for the HTML WG: in this way it is very similar to the introduction of Microdata (which has spun out to the HTML Microdata Draft) and RDFa (which has spun off to the HTML + RDFa Draft) * The HTML-A11Y TF were not consulted on this topic; they are currently tasked with, and working on, specific recommendations related to one or more Time Stamp formats. The Task Force was recently surveyed on which time-stamp formats should be considered (http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/media-text-format/results), at which time WebSRT neither existed nor was proposed or suggested. * Premature spec language exacerbates HTML-A11Y TF's ability to work expeditiously toward an HTML5 last call. It introduces tangents and levels of confusion that work against a timely completion of a last call document. * The continuing active work on this topic in the Media Subteam of the HTML-A11Y TF is well known to the HTML-WG. To move forward on spec language without TF input contravenes the consensus policy of the W3C. Also relates to: * Issue-9 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/9) 35473 1 hober0 2010-05-06 21:23:09 +0000 Responding to some of John's points: > * This is a newly proposed file format that is not yet fully > specified[...] I'm sure this has been the case for every feature ever added to the HTML spec. (Was any HTML4 feature "fully specified?") Ian's draft is where he does the work of specifying things; at any given time, it contains many different things, at different stages of development. This isn't a bad thing. It allows all of us to follow along as things progress. > * It has not been proven that the newly minted WebSRT format addresses > all known accessibility issues[...] It has not been proven that *any format* addresses all known accessibility issues, much less any format suitable for the Web. This isn't an argument against WebSRT, this is just Stop Energy dressed up as an a11y Precautionary Principle. > * It is likely that creating and defining a new Time Stamp format is > out of scope for the HTML WG: in this way it is very similar to the > introduction of Microdata (which has spun out to the HTML Microdata > Draft) and RDFa (which has spun off to the HTML + RDFa Draft) I don't have an opinion on the scope argument, but I don't think you're making the best case for it here. Your two examples (Microdata and HTML5+RDFa) have nothing to do with your scope claim--if Microdata or HTML5+RDFa were out of scope for the WG, then we wouldn't have spun them out *into documents within the WG*. 35474 2 jfoliot 2010-05-06 21:34:50 +0000 Responding to Edward: * There is a difference between introducing features and creating a whole new file format, previously unknown. * This is NOT a *Stop Energy* issue, this is a *Focus Energy in the right place* issue. If those within the HTML WG concerned about this issue wish to contribute, do so within the existing framework which is currently mandated to do so: the a11y TF, of which any member of the larger HTML WG is welcome to participate in. I for one would welcome your involvement if you choose to jump in. * re: reference to HTML Microdata and HTML+RDFa - the basic principle remains, specifics aside. If some members wish to work on a specifying a new Time-Stamp format (WebSRT) it should be done outside of the main HTML5 Specification, just as work on Microformats and RDFa have been handled. 35475 3 mjs 2010-05-06 21:37:08 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > Responding to Edward: > > * There is a difference between introducing features and creating a whole new > file format, previously unknown. My understanding is that WebSRT is a codification and set of extensions to SRT, not a brand new format. That being said, I think it would be better to put it in its own spec. I think WebSRT, if split out, would probably be a better document to reference than the de facto SRT format, which is not properly specified anywhere. 35477 4 jfoliot 2010-05-07 00:53:35 +0000 Maciej wrote: > > My understanding is that WebSRT is a codification and > set of extensions to SRT, not a brand new format. That > being said, I think it would be better to put it in its > own spec. > > I think WebSRT, if split out, would probably be a better > document to reference than the de facto SRT format, > which is not properly specified anywhere. I agree with this, although it strikes me that for a format such as WebSRT to evolve that you would likely end up with a derivative of either SMIL or TTML, as much of the required needs analysis for this functionality has already been done there. I think that focusing effort on defining a better profile of either format that meets everyone's needs would be work effort that would show greater payoff, rather than re-walking old territory. In either case, I am in agreement that referencing an external document (rather than embedding it into HTML5) is the better option here. 35496 5 philipj 2010-05-07 04:59:52 +0000 Have no opinion on how to shuffle documents, but as usual it's probably fastest to accept any request to split and then move on with the actual work of speccing and implementing. 35497 6 adrianba 2010-05-07 05:53:11 +0000 Microsoft believes that the HTML5 spec should not define a captioning format. It is out of scope for the document. Further, while SRT is a good choice for very simple captioning needs, there are many existing formats that content providers use for subtitles and captions. Consequently, the spec should allow user agents to support multiple formats without mandating a particular format as the one and only requirement. 37493 7 ian 2010-08-16 21:39:20 +0000 marking WORKSFORME since the W3C spec doesn't have any mention of timed tracks 37508 8 mjs 2010-08-16 22:03:51 +0000 Changing resolution to WORKSFORME per Ian's comment (I assume INVALID was an error).