W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Media TextFormats Accessibility Comparison Summary Released

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:18:51 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=FVFcYDMf2_PANmQd7108t4yHmQW2JZFhiNio3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
You are right - XSL-FO has not been explicitly spelled out as a
problem with TTML. Instead, it has been subsumed under "The XML root
of TTML is seen as a problem by some implementers and authors.".

It is probably worth adding these objections explicitly rather than
staying vague about them.

Regards,
Silvia.

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2010, at 20:15, Janina Sajka wrote:
>
>> The comparison summary document is available at:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Comparison_Overview
>
> I obverse that the comparison fails to mention the use of a formatting model (XSL-FO) that isn't already implemented by browser engines as an "issue" for TTML (and fails to mention the use of the CSS formatting model as a strength of WebSRT/WebVTT). This is a rather central omission in the comparison.
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 09:22:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:21 UTC