Re: [Hls-interest] Inclusive Language

["May, Bill" <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 24, 2020, at 12:07 PM, John Bartos <bartsjb=[e-mail]<mailto:bartsjb=[e-mail]>> wrote:

Thanks everyone for the support so far. Regarding intention, I don't believe that it matters at this moment. The fact that the terms can be interpreted in that way is the issue, and it's clear that that interpretation does happen. We don't get to determine how people interpret it. Furthermore, people reading the spec don't have the context Bill provided here which digs into its origin.

I don't want to get caught up on semantics, but I see it like this: the two files are presented hierarchically and one is called "master". I don't think it's a stretch if someone interprets the other as "slave”.

I’m not going to debate here, but you’re exactly caught up on semantics.

The whole argument is that you’re interpreting a phrase in a way that wasn’t intended when the definition in the specification explicitly states a different interpretation.


To be clear I'm not blaming or attacking the authors. What I am saying is that we can improve ourselves.

As for the terms, I like "playlist" over "rendition". So we have:

  *   Main playlist
  *   Variant playlist
  *   Content playlist
  *   Root playlist
  *   Index playlist (I do agree with JL, and I think we can acknowledge the prevalence of "index.m3u8")

And for the segments:

  *   Media playlist
  *   Variant playlist (again, but in a different context. It is a variant instead of it contains variants, which is a bit confusing imo).

I have been using Main/Media at work for a while now and have not run into any confusion yet. So I prefer those.


For next steps, I think we should narrow down the above and then I'll send out a poll. Of course until Apple/Roger weighs in this is all voluntary and up to each organization to implement. But as Bill said, consistency is good.


I believe that the term "Master Playlist” is the only term up for consideration to be changed.

 “Media Playlist”, “Variant Playlist” and “Rendition” have exact meanings in the specification and are used consistently and correctly.   I’m not aware of any objections to these terms .  Is there?

If not, they should not be up for any type of change.

In addition, I don’t believe any poll we have would be binding and may actually be counterproductive.

Roger is exacting in his terminology and if Apple decides that it should be changed, I trust him to come up with an exact term that will correctly describe the relationship.

Unless someone believes that there is something else offensive in the terminology in the specification, I believe that this conversation raised the point and should wait for Roger’s official verdict.

Thanks,
Bill