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 11:14:02 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikZQ2ErLy-SWw44=vHiOzHZdnUEGSns0RF=xFjX@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>
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Oh. I thought the "XML root" meant problems with streaming and XML requiring one root element.

Streaming issues around timed text formats are mostly to do with
in-band use of timed text formats, i.e. with delivering timed text in
sync with the audio-visual data one chunk at a time.

In the wiki page that the TF put together this was mostly captured
through the box that says "Methods exist for encapsulating SRT into
Ogg, Matroska (the basis of WebM) and MPEG-4. WebSRT would work
identically." In-band TTML seems to have been implemented as well,
though I know very little about it and am not sure how they dealt with
the root element issue, which they must have dealt with. Thus, this
wasn't really further regarded as a problem since solutions already
exist.

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 10:20:42 UTC

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