W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > February 2003

RE: TT and subtitling

From: Glenn A. Adams <glenn@xfsi.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:21:49 -0500
Message-ID: <7249D02C4D2DFD4D80F2E040E8CAF37C01FB05@longxuyen.xfsi.com>
To: <Johnb@screen.subtitling.com>
Cc: <public-tt@w3.org>
See below.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Johnb@screen.subtitling.com [mailto:Johnb@screen.subtitling.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:16 AM
	To: Glenn A. Adams
	Cc: public-tt@w3.org
	Subject: RE: TT and subtitling

	        > I would prefer to state my position :-) as "semantic markup vocabulary should be avoided where possible"   

	[GAA> ]Is your concern that (1) all useful semantic markup can't be 
	predefined; or (2) no semantic markup should be defined.  If 
	it is the former, then that can be dealt with readily by proper 
	use of namespaces and schema validation. 
	[JB> ] I certainly agree with 1. 

	[GAA> ]My present view is that if there are a small number of 
	common semantic attributions that can be defined and that 
	support existing usage, then we should consider their inclusion. 
	[JB> ] But the use of this markup should be optional. If that was the case then I would have no issue with it's inclusion, but would question its usefulness, since optional tags **tend** to be ignored. 

	Yes, of course. Requiring the presence of semantic
	markup would not be a good idea. I don't think anyone
	is proposing that. The issue is whether some standardized
	vocabulary is defined or not, such that for those authors
	that do wish to use that vocabulary, there is a common

	[GAA> ]One way we may handle your desire to have something specify 
	*only* the timing aspects is to produce our results in a modular 
	form, so that for those applications that only want timing, then 
	they could make use of only the module that defines it (along 
	with any prerequisite framework module). 
	[JB> ] Sounds interesting - would this be along the lines of the MPEG profiles? 

	No. It is simply a editorial process of dividing
	the work into separate modules, each of which have
	their own independent conformance requirements    

	        > It may be necessary to include markup that has semantic implications, for example hidden text 
	        that provides definitions of terms, expansions of acronyms etc. 
	        > The M.D.<hidden-hover>Managing Director<\hidden-hover> of Blah corporation today....  

	[GAA> ]This is stylistic mark, not semantics markup). 

	[JB> ]  Apologies for the poor example :-( 
	The semantic meaning was intended to be 'this is a definition' 
	The stylistic meaning was intended to be 'this text is displayed in style hidden-hover' 

	I'll try another :-) 
	The markup <caption> could IMHO have both semantic and stylistic implications. 

	My model of semantic markup is that it has no implied
	style or presentation (at least in the standard). Any
	stylistic implications would have to be made explicit
	through style rules or style properties.
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:21:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:23:58 UTC