- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:13:00 +1100
- To: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Cc: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
I think "widely used" was a fair assessment for SRT. All professional entities that I've known that use other formats are usually also capable of using SRT because it's so simple. Just saying "is implemented in some sectors of the Web-development community" is unfair because there are many professional entities that use it, too. They make no big fuss about it, but they support it. SRT support is more commonly found than TTML and I would therefore object to any representation that tries to imply the opposite. Silvia. On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote: > > I made another pass through the overview document with the new non-political approach in mind. Among other edits, I removed the "widely used" references to SRT because that's more a matter of opinion, I think. I also did a general grammar sweep, tidied up some inconsistent terminology and conformed some language. > > I can't add this to the chart but I've heard a rumor of a new TTML implementation, this time by a major US entity. I'm trying to establish if it's true or false; will let you know what I find. > > Geoff/NCAM > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Silvia Pfeiffer [silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:01 PM > To: Geoff Freed; Sean Hayes; Frank Olivier; Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force > Subject: Re: Media Gaps Document--36 Hour Consensus Call > > Actually, we should use the following link as discussed in the meeting: > http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Comparison_Overview > > Regards, > Silvia. > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: >> Dear Media Subteam Colleagues: >> >> Our teleconference today, 15 December, was devoted almost entirely to >> cleaning up our language usage in our Formats Comparison document. We >> felt the need to avoid any emotional or prejudicial language in this >> document. We believe we've achieved this, but the document is now >> rather different from that which we looked at last week. >> >> Therefore, as determined at today's call minuted at: >> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/15-html-a11y-minutes.html, >> we are calling for any objections to moving this analysis document >> forward to the HTML WG be registered as responses to this email no later >> than 12 Noon Boston Time, this coming Friday 17 December (17:00 UTC). >> >> The document can be found at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Pros_Cons_Overview#Summary_o >> >> Is this document now ready to forward to the HTML WG? >> >> We are particularly eager to hear from Sean, Frank, and/or Geoff, as you >> all have helped create this document. >> >> Special request to Sean: If we have mischaracterized your view of TTML, >> if you do, in fact, believe that all our User Requirements require is >> available in TTML as currently specified, please identify the specific >> profile you believe suffices by correct name and URI, and please >> indicate whether this should include the voluntary as well as the >> mandatory sections. Our text until today referred to the "basic >> profile," but there's not actually a profile called "basic" named at the >> TTML page--therefore the request to specify precisely which one is >> meant. >> >> Thank you all for helping conclude this analysis before our end of year >> hiatus. >> >> Janina >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 >> sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net >> >> Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org >> Linux Foundation http://a11y.org >> >> Chair, Protocols & Formats >> Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf >> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 03:13:54 UTC