Timed Text was Re: on SRT...

That was, effectively, where we ended up. The support for Timed Text in Flash is a subset of the whole spec, though we are building on that support. If you're thinking about live use cases (or cases where you're importing media with existing roll-up captions), that would expand the scope of things, but unless I'm mistaken, HTML5 video isn't there yet.

How would you feel about an HTML5 profile of TTML (<- new name for DFXP as of the CR released today[1]) that at least matches the Presentation Profile?

-
m

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/

On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:38 AM, David Singer wrote:

> 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 20:16:44 UTC