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

Re: on SRT...

From: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:06:08 -0800
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5302C380-1666-4983-930E-6CF60D7758BB@adobe.com>
I don't remember seeing anyone saying no to SRT. I do see a few people saying yes, and. Most notably to Timed Text. I'm one of those.

Obviously, SRT is simple to implement and to write captions in. We can agree that it's a no-brainer. However, speaking for a company that is shipping a Timed Text implementation, it's not much harder to build good-enough support for that, either. When you take into consideration the features TT offers relative to SRT (many of which, like styling, you get for free by being inside an HTML renderer), I think it would be short-sighted to say SubRip should be good enough. It'd look bad to lock captioning functionality to something so basic when we've been able to do better for years.

In reality, I bet more content would be generated in SRT than TT if they were both in the profile. It's a quick and dirty format, and it's fine in most cases. But TT is also in use now, the tools to generate it are available today, and it gives people a fuller feature set that implementers can build iteratively, if necessary. Timed Text, or at least some subset thereof, has got to be in the mix.

-
m

On Feb 22, 2010, at 11:37 AM, David Singer wrote:

> I think it's probably not very relevant whether it's mandated or (merely?) recommended, as I think it's so prevalent and so easily implemented that anyone would be nuts not to do it, sort of like GIF for images today.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 18:06:44 GMT

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