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

Re: HTML 5, SMIL, Video

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:56:12 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831002211356k15b0b517kf01b68625dde00a8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>
Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, markku.hakkinen@gmail.com, symm@w3.org
Hi Dick,

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your observations and opinions -- although many of them confuse
> me, because they seem to turn the facts on their head or twist reality. (I
> especially like the idea of post-ingestion styling of text -- I can't wait
> to see the syntax than can predict which of the SRT characters should be
> bold, italic or colored!

SRT will definitely not be used for that. That's what DFXP would be used for.


> I also like the assertion that 00:00:06,000 is more
> precise than 6s: it is simply more verbose!)

I am fully aware that smilText can have that resolution, too. I was
taking it in the context of counting how many characters were used in
the example and SRT is smaller even with a full time code.
Incidentally, real subtitles hardly ever fall on a full second
boundary, so milliseconds are always useful. Also, the simplicity of
having only one fixed time format is mirrored in a simple parsing
implementation - the more formats there are, the more difficult and
error-prone the parsing becomes. SRT avoids this.


> A discussion at a F2F would probably be more fruitful -- but let's be clear
> -- I'm not trying to cram smilText (or DFXP) down anyone's throat. It is
> simply a better alternative for meeting a11y needs. Nothing you have said
> challenges this reality.

>From the beginning I have argued for a combination of SRT and DFXP to
meet the needs of all involved. I would be open to swapping out DFXP
and replacing it with smilText, but I believe DFXP is more flexible.
Also, I believe smilText can be transcoded to DFXP without loss of
information - the other direction is not true. That tells me that
smilText is not necessary.


> What concerns me most, however, is your expression of contempt for the W3C
> process in your concluding paragraph this morning. This makes it clear to me
> that we are not debating technology but theology. Too bad.

I am sorry if that was your perception - it is not what I said. I have
the highest of respect for the W3C, but I also respect the work of
others out there. I do not take the W3C as a superior organisation
over everyone else - that's all.


> But enough said. I, too, will monitor what others have to say.

Indeed. :-)


Best Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 21:57:05 GMT

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