- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:45:25 +1100
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:56 PM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: >> 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 >> > > While it's only indicative, a Google search for filetype:srt provides > 264,000 results while filetype:ttml provides 713 results. > > Neither of these numbers mean much because the majority of these files > will not live on the 'net. But they are indicative and quantitative. Actually - just looking at the ttml files - they are all not Timed Text ML files. Doesn't seem like this number means much. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 06:46:19 UTC