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

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

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:43:00 +1000
Message-ID: <g2v2c0e02831004230143x7ec47e5cgad58d48e23b167cd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Cc: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>, Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
There's a slight but important difference between our discussion here
and the codec impasse. The codec impasse exists because the browser
vendors cannot agree on a common codec format to implement. But for
our case, thus far, I have only heard from browser vendors that all
they want to implement is SRT, which would solve our timed text codec
impasse easily.

It will be a frustrating first step, though, because we all know that
SRT is not sufficient for many of the use cases we have in our heads.
So, we need to convince the browser vendors that more is needed and we
can only convince them with real-world examples and use cases. This is
why I have contributed extensively to Ian's requirements analysis with
example screen shots. Format arguments lead nowhere in my experience.
You can only argue for a specific format if it satisfies those
requirements.

You should all contribute screenshots of real-world use of features
that you see a need for being supported by HTML5 in time-aligned text.
The format discussion comes later based on these requirements.

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that we are once again heading towards the impasse that happened when trying to bless a single video and audio codec. It seems likely to me that the solution should focus on how the association is made, where it shows up, and if necessary (which I don't think it is) any API or event model associated, and not get bogged down in which format has the most friends.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Eric Carlson
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:55 PM
> To: Dick Bulterman
> Cc: Ian Hickson; HTML Accessibility Task Force
> Subject: Re: [media] WHATWG started requirements collection for time-aligned text
>
>
> 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 Friday, 23 April 2010 08:43:53 GMT

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