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

Re: Media Gaps Document--36 Hour Consensus Call

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:45:25 +1100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=CPRzPrvWPqZ99RbnB3iWKxLPMhtYm4jnibiJX@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 06:46:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:16 UTC