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

Re: HTML 5, SMIL, Video

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:37:12 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831002201437w6f303c94y7c6f528f7405409d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Cc: Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "markku.hakkinen@gmail.com" <markku.hakkinen@gmail.com>, "symm@w3.org" <symm@w3.org>
Hi Geoff, Dick, al

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote:
> On 2/20/10 6:52 AM, "Dick Bulterman" <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> GF:  I’d like to add one further point and then I will cease hollering about
> SRT.  Among many other reasons, both DFXP and SmilText were invented to
> obviate the need for proprietary and/or non-standard text-display formats.
>  The working groups wanted to support caption/subtitle authors (and others)
> with open and standards-body-approved formats, thus eliminating the need to
> force authors to cater to the various incompatible, proprietary and/or
> non-standard text-display formats demanded by various media players.  Yes, I
> know that SRT is non-proprietary and simple to author, but for all the
> reasons stated over the past week I think it’s also not necessary for us to
> use it.  Without triggering a political fight, dare I say that the W3C
> should re-use its own formats especially when those formats fulfill the
> specified need.  Unless I and others are totally off base, SmilText and DFXP
> complement each other and can fill all the needs of caption/subtitle
> authors.  Combine that with the suggestion of adding a method to convert SRT
> files to SmilText or DFXP (sorry, I don’t know how to do this but I’m sure
> somebody here does) and that *could* be the middle ground we seek.

I don't think supporting both SmilText and DFXP makes sense. From what
I have read all through this thread and read about SmilText and DFXP,
there is a clear way to transcode SmilText to DFXP. So, it is clearly
not a format that brings any additional value. Nobody in practice is
using it, so why should HTML5 push a format that has existed for a
long time and been pushed by the W3C and other bodies, but never found
any uptake.

We have to stop thinking that the W3C is the Saviour of the World Wide
Web and that we have to make all these people out there change their
ways because they are on the wrong path with the way in which they use
the Internet and the non-xml formats that they use. This hasn't worked
for xhtml, or for rdf (Notation 3 is more commonly used for RDF than
RDF-XML), or for many other things done in recent years. The W3C has
to start thinking about the actual needs of people (Web users and not
corporations) and how those needs are currently satisfied and how that
can be better integrated with the Web. That is why the WHATWG was
created and why HTML5 did not originate in the W3C.

Let's just give the SRT discussion a rest. It is not xml and it is the
better for it for many people out there. It is more part of the Web
than e.g. SmilText, since it's in actual use on the Web by people
right now. It is not created by W3C and we should get over our
arrogance of needing to tell everyone how they are meant to use the
Web. There is not a single reason mentioned over the last week that
makes SRT non-acceptable for the W3C other than the "not invented
here" syndrome.

Best Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 20 February 2010 22:38:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:02 GMT