- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:56:52 -0800 (PST)
- To: "'Eric Carlson'" <eric.carlson@apple.com>, "'Geoff Freed'" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Cc: "'Sean Hayes'" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "'Frank Olivier'" <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Eric Carlson wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2010, at 7:13 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > 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. > > I agree! SRT is one of the formats that YouTube recommends people use > when uploading captions > that are not already formatted [1]: > > If you do not have formatted caption data, such as a transcript that does > not have timing data, we recommend using SubRip (*.SRT) or SubViewer (*.SUB) > for generating formatted captions. Although I have complained to the HTML WG Chairs in the past about the use of vague metrics when it comes to measurement, I think that here 'widely used' does represent a fairly accurate assessment of SRT's usage. It's usage in the fan-sub community for sub-titling is also well known, although getting a handle on quantity metrics is difficult. Unless there is strong push-back I believe we are best served by retaining that phrase here. My $0.02 Canadian JF
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 05:57:26 UTC