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

Re: on SRT...

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:38:06 -0700
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-Id: <19BCE1DA-4ECC-44D5-A221-A5B1312A2FA6@apple.com>
To: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
I don't have a problem with DFXP, but I think we'll need to profile it -- it contains elements for support of (for example) 3GPP Timed Text, such as scroll-in, and also for out-of-time-order sequencing, neither of which I think we want in this case, do we?

On Feb 22, 2010, at 15:41 , Matt May wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> What do you think about smilText compared to DFXP? It has been
>> stipulated that smilText may be easier to integrate with HTML.
> 
> That may be, but I don't see that as sufficient reason to choose it over DFXP. For that to be a selling point, I think it'd have to be more tightly integrated with HTML5 than I think either the Editor or the implementers on this list are interested in. But that's just MHO. 
> 
> If we're talking about inserting code directly into the HTML DOM, from what I've seen of it, I think smilText and DFXP are a wash. Syntactically, though, DFXP is _much_ more HTML-like. By which I mean, it's HTML (head, body, div, span, p, br) with media-specific attributes. For content producers who are already familiar with HTML, DFXP would quite likely be easier to grok than either smilText or SRT.
> 
> -
> m

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 16:38:39 GMT

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