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

Re: HTML 5, SMIL, Video

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:23:00 +0800
To: "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "Dick Bulterman" <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>, "Geoff Freed" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Cc: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "markku.hakkinen@gmail.com" <markku.hakkinen@gmail.com>, "symm@w3.org" <symm@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u8mb0mr3atwj1d@philip-pc.oslo.opera.com>
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:14:23 +0800, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>  
wrote:

> On 2/22/10 4:03 AM, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:18:00 +0800, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Earlier Silvia asked if others would be responding.  I've been following
>> this thread closely and have some thoughts and opinions to add to the
>> discussion.
>>
>>
>> Philip Jägenstedt wrote:

>>> I think we should have one extremely simple format like SRT right now
>>> and
>>> eventually one on the far other end of the scale that can handle all
>>> current use cases and is extensible for the future in some fashion.
>>
>> I think that "eventually" will be a lot closer than you might be giving
>> it
>> credit for. I am already producing a rudimentary DFXP file from the
>> Stanford
>> Captioning system - the file being auto-generated from accurate
>> transcription text files.  Since machines can generate XML marked files
>> as
>> easily as SRT, the question of 'ease of authoring' will likely become
>> moot
>> sooner than later. Given the obvious benefits of XML marked files w.r.t.
>> the
>> styling, accessibility, etc. there will likely be a move towards a  
>> richer
>> markup of the transcripts early on, especially for large commercial
>> producers. (Impending legislation such as H.R. 3101 will have a huge
>> impact
>> in the US on advancing this if/when passed into law)
>
> The time-consuming part isn't authoring but implementation. DFXP is quite
> big and for there to be any advantage over SRT the styling needs to be
> supported. I don't want to exaggerate the difficulty, but years before
> there are implementations in several browsers really doesn't seem
> unreasonable. Only if all browser vendors agree to make format X high
> priority and spend a lot of resources on it will things be any different.
>
> GF:  I don't doubt that the implementation is difficult.  But if the  
> simple implementation is given priority, how likely is it that the  
> complex implementation will follow?  Is it likely that Opera would make  
> a high-priority commitment to the complex implementation?   Would other  
> vendors represented on this list be able to make a similar commitment?

I'm really not in a position to promise anything (including SRT), I'm only  
saying what I hope will happen. What is prioritized of course depends on  
what users and customers ask for, and I have no idea at this point how big  
the demand for any particular format is.

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 06:23:49 GMT

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