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

Re: Survey ready on Media Text Associations proposal

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:23:47 -0800
Cc: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <3836ED5A-8F19-4D06-9F28-6348BFAE261E@apple.com>
To: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>

On Mar 4, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Matt May wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Eric Carlson wrote:
>> I generally agree with this proposal, but would like to see the  
>> following changes before we submit it to the WG:
>>
>> + We should not mandate DFXP at this time. It has many features  
>> that will complicate implementation significantly which are not  
>> needed for this proposal. I think we should help define a DFXP  
>> profile that is more suitable for our needs.
>
> There is already a minimal profile in the DFXP spec itself.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#profile-dfxp-presentation
>
> Functionally, it doesn't ask any more than SRT does. It's really  
> just adding begin, dur and end attributes to a half-dozen elements  
> that already exist in HTML.

Maybe I'm reading the spec wrong, but it seems to me that  
implementation of that profile requires implementation of XSL-FO.  
Reasoning:

- Presentation profile requires presentation feature: http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#feature-presentation
- Presentation feature requires implementing sections 9.3 and 9.4: <http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#semantics-region-layout 
 >, <http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#feature-presentation>
- Sections 9.3 and 9.4 are defined in terms of mapping to XSL-FO.

Implementing XSL-FO would be a pretty high barrier for browser-hosted  
implementations. It's regrettable that DFXP was not based on CSS  
layout and styling instead.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 18:24:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:03 GMT