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

RE: RE : [Moderator Action] Bugs and TT (was TT and subtitling)

From: <Johnb@screen.subtitling.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:19:09 -0000
Message-ID: <11E58A66B922D511AFB600A0244A722E093EB4@NTMAIL>
To: joeclark@joeclark.org
Cc: public-tt@w3.org

Joe Clark wrote:

> >         Personally I feel that in most cases the cause is lost for
> >existing **emission systems** (e.g. TV, DAB, DVD) adopting TT.
> Not at the authoring level and at a level midway between authoring 
> and emission.

Absolutely - TT will hopefully be ideal for authoring, storage, QA and
pre-transmission manipulation.
> Case in point: I know one broadcaster that has the idea (not a very 
> solid one, in my view) of converting all subtitling and even closed 
> captioning to Microsoft Word files (!) that are simply pushed through 
> at airtime, rather comparable to live-display captioning.


> >Current multimedia standards (eg SMIL) are generally not appropriate
> >for subtitling.
> That's a tad broad.

By subtitling I am referring to my admittedly narrow perspective of
subtitling and captioning of broadcast video. I have looked at SMIL and
Quicktime and cannot see how to reconcile the timing aspects of these
standards with the timecode in an external broadcast signal (where the
timecode may be discontinuous due to advert insertion). Comments please?


John Birch

The views and opinions expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily
reflect the views and opinions of Screen Subtitling Systems Limited.
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 06:10:20 UTC

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