On Thu May 3 08:37:59 2012, L. David Baron wrote:
> Does the following comment seem reasonable:
> # We oppose the part of the charter that continues to try to push
> # TTML into HTML5. At this point the market has settled on
> # WebVTT: Mozilla, Opera and Google have shown a preference for
> # WebVTT and Microsoft has implemented WebVTT and subsetted TTML
> # to remove most of its features so that in their implementation
> # it is merely a syntactic alternative to WebVTT. We certainly
> # don't intend to implement TTML for HTML5 video.
It does. As far as I can tell the charter consists *only* of
developping a new TTML spec.
Note there are already two community groups at the W3C, one pursuing
WebVTT and one working on TTML. We participate in the former,
which has been doing useful work to develop the spec. The later as been
much less active, at least in public.
> Alternatively, if I choose the first option above, I could add:
> # Given that captioning on the Web has clearly moved towards
> # WebVTT rather than TTML, it's not clear why the W3C should be
> # continuing to devote resources to TTML.
That is also a reasonable response. Producing an improved TTML spec is
a fine goal, but not something I see a need for in the domain of the
web. I would also say the current process, with the community group
developing a community WebVTT spec, is working.
I don't have a strong feeling either. If we think a more formal working
group would help with buy-in from other organizations, we should
support the creation of timed text working group focussed on improving
the WebVTT spec. We supported the WebVTT community group in the hope
that it would be more accessible to large implementors than the earlier
whatwg process, and the same argument applies here.