Redraft opening section of §2.1

[nigelmegitt]

Closes #175 as per #175 (comment) .

---

Preview | Diff

[andreastai]

Thanks @nigelmegitt!

The conclusion in our last discussion (documented in github comment) as as follows:

MattS: I definitely think they are not used interchangeable. But "script" has a broader range of meanings than "transcript".

Andreas: Would you say a "transcript" is not a "script"?

MattS: I would say a "transcript" is a kind of "script".
MattS: From a workflow point of view a script is forward looking, but linguistically a transcript is a form of script.

Cyril: How do we resolve this issue? Is modifying the first paragraph to say that a transcript is a special type of script - would that help?

Andreas: That would be clearer to me at least, but then you have to rewrite the whole paragraph. Currently they seem to be mutually exclusive.

In your edit you make DAPT script a superset of transcript and script but you keep the distinction of transcript and script. From my understanding, we concluded that transcript is a subset of script.

[nigelmegitt]

Thanks @andreastai I thought I'd done that, but maybe I'm still missing the point. I just pushed a small change to clarify that in general usage a transcript is a type of script. Does that work?

[andreastai]

Thanks @andreastai I thought I'd done that, but maybe I'm still missing the point. I just pushed a small change to clarify that in general usage a transcript is a type of script. Does that work?

Thanks @nigelmegitt for the addition to clarify the intent. My understanding was that we follow the general usage and do not make the below distinction between transcripts and scripts.

a script is a text representation of the intended content of media prior to its creation, for example, to guide an actor in recording an audio track.

With this usage, a transcript is not a script. It is now explained that this is done on purpose but I would argue you do not need this different use of script. We (nearly) always use the term script in the more generic understanding e.g. in compounds like dubbing scripts or in DAPT vocabulary like script event.

But if nobody else has an issue with this, I am fine with leaving it like it is.

[nigelmegitt]

Added to the agenda for tomorrow's call, to allow us to check in on this and discover if anyone else thinks further change is needed.

CC @mattsimpson3 @cconcolato who were involved in the discussion, especially because Cyril has sent his regrets for the call - comments on this thread would be very useful too as always.

[mattsimpson3]

All good for me!

[css-meeting-bot]

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed Redraft opening section of §2.1 w3c/dapt#183, and agreed to the following:

• SUMMARY: Remove standalone term "script" when it means script or transcript.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<nigel> Subtopic: Redraft opening section of §2.1 #183
<nigel> github: https://github.com//pull/183
<nigel> Nigel: I made some more edits yesterday, Matt reviewed and approved.
<nigel> .. I just wanted to check in and understand what problems remain.
<nigel> Andreas: Reiterate that if other reviewers are happy, then we can go ahead.
<nigel> .. If these terms are as used in the domain, it's fine.
<nigel> .. I thought there were some cases were the term script on its own is used generically, like in Script Type
<nigel> Nigel: I can't see that.
<nigel> Andreas: It's in §2.2.1 3rd bullet
<nigel> Nigel: Ah, thank you, I will fix that.
<nigel> .. I'll also do another check through for any other instances of this.
<nigel> Andreas: I found one other place, in the same section, below the first example, 2nd paragraph.
<nigel> .. "The first example shows a script where ..."
<nigel> Nigel: Yes, I see what you mean.
<nigel> .. Apologies I didn't catch those before and resolve them. I will look for others, also if you
<nigel> .. find any more please let me know.
<nigel> Andreas: Yes, will do.
<nigel> SUMMARY: Remove standalone term "script" when it means script or transcript.

[nigelmegitt]

@andreastai I think I've removed all unwanted uses of "script" as a standalone term, which were all in the Introduction. I did a search through the rest of the document, both in rendered form and in the source, and didn't find any others.

[andreastai]

@andreastai I think I've removed all unwanted uses of "script" as a standalone term, which were all in the Introduction. I did a search through the rest of the document, both in rendered form and in the source, and didn't find any others.

Thanks, @nigelmegitt, I also went through all uses of the term "script" and the use is now consistent.