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

Posted.

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : public-tt-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] De la part de 
> Johnb@screen.subtitling.com
> Envoyé : jeudi 6 février 2003 12:19
> À : joeclark@joeclark.org
> Cc : public-tt@w3.org
> Objet : RE: RE : [Moderator Action] Bugs and TT (was TT and 
> subtitling)
> 
> 
> 
> 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 06:00:10 UTC