- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:11:13 -0800
- To: Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de>
- Cc: Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@chromium.org>, Victor Cărbune <vcarbune@chromium.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapf@chromium.org>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Hi Andreas, thanks for the thoughtful points. On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:52 , Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de> wrote: > The decision to build upon SRT instead of TTML and the reasons that led to this decision have to be respected. But it seems not correct to me now to deny that TTML is a rendering format for "web distribution of captions" and ignore the fact that it is widely used for this purpose. It was used before WebVTT reached a stable status. This fact seems not to be well known and it is often mistrusted so indeed a list which content providers already use TTML would make this more transparent. > > It seems like an irony of the story that the format that were added at a later stage for the same purpose makes a claim to be the only legitimate candidate for that purpose. I think actions or words that attempt to denigrate, pigeonhole, spindle, fold, or mutilate [1] either format are not helpful. We need to focus our energies on what we care about most: making multimedia web content accessible. > We have two W3C rendering formats for captions on the web. This is not a pleasant situation. But we have to cope with it. The new development to combine both efforts in one group is a good, pragmatic start. It can work out if on both sides co-existence on the same field is accepted. Completely agree. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Fold,_Spindle_or_Mutilate#cite_note-1 David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 22:11:41 UTC