W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [media] WHATWG started requirements collection for time-aligned text

From: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:55:07 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DCD0C7EF-07EE-4E24-890C-71039889E652@apple.com>
To: Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>

On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:12 AM, Dick Bulterman wrote:

> On the timed text tracks, I would (once again) like to suggest that rather than inventing yet another form of timed text, the WHATWG look at the work on smilText. This format can be dropped into HTML-5 with little or no change and provides the following advantages:
> 1. It supports absoulte and relative timing of text fragments,
> 2. It allows CSS to be used for styling text objects
> 3. It is intuitive for hand-authors, but can also be generated
> 4. It is structured into a basic module, a styling module and a text motion module, so that growth is possbile
> 5. It can be supported in an external file as a streaming format or in-line.
> 
> The disadvantages?
> 1. It was not invented by this group.
> 
  How is this a disadvantage?

  Or are just being snarky? If so, how does that help us make a decision - how does it encourage anyone to consider your proposal?

eric
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 14:55:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:07 GMT