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

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

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:59:06 +0100
To: <jan.vandermeer@philips.com>, <public-tt@w3.org>
Cc: <public-tt-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000201c2ce97$ef930b10$0200a8c0@wistiti>
posted

-----Message d'origine-----
De : jan.vandermeer@philips.com [mailto:jan.vandermeer@philips.com] 
Envoyé : jeudi 6 février 2003 16:28
À : public-tt@w3.org
Cc : public-tt-request@w3.org
Objet : RE: RE : [Moderator Action] Bugs and TT (was TT and subtitling)



John, 

> 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?

Good point. In my view the timestamp should be an external attribute to
the subtitle, that can for example be assigned by the transport or by
the application that is in charge of the play-back. Each subtitle may
have some internal attributes to define its temporal behavior, such as
duration and "scroll-time", but its presentation time should be assigned
by means external to the subtilte itself. 

Best regards,

Jan van der Meer





	




public-tt@w3.org 


Sent by: 
public-tt-request@w3.org 


2003-02-06 12:10 PM 


        
        To:        joeclark@joeclark.org 
        cc:        public-tt@w3.org
(bcc: Jan vanderMeer/EHV/CE/PHILIPS) 
        Subject:        RE: RE : [Moderator Action] Bugs and TT (was TT
and subtitling) 

        Classification:         






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.

Hmmm!

> >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?

regards 

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 Friday, 7 February 2003 05:59:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:26 GMT