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

Re: Timed Text was Re: on SRT...

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:35:17 -0700
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-Id: <95DD09D7-72DD-407E-9863-68F47D3AB6C4@apple.com>
To: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
I think that probably makes sense, but I haven't looked at the details;  also, the profile definitions don't seem to permit semantic constraints such as time-ordering.

They might have removed DFXP from the title, but there are 'more than 100 matches' [Safari] in the document itself... :-(

I don't think SMIL Text has either traction (like SRT) or is so well targetted (as TTML), so I don't currently see reason to pick it up.


On Feb 23, 2010, at 13:16 , Matt May wrote:

> 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.
>> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 20:35:51 GMT

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