W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > March 2005

RE: Timed Text Authoring Format - Distribution Format Exchange Pr ofile (DFXP)

From: <Johnb@screen.subtitling.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:22:46 -0000
Message-ID: <11E58A66B922D511AFB600A0244A722EE57D8A@NTMAIL>
To: public-tt@w3.org
Glenn,
 
But not by using a standards based interchange format composed from XML,
which, after all, was the initial assignment given to the TT WG to solve.
Yes, DFXP as a 'better' RealText (<- insert favourite proprietary format
here)...
Please understand, my 'frustration' is not that I see DFXP as flawed, far
from it, I think it is a comprehensive and well rounded construct. It is
more a disappointment that it is not the **lightweight** semantic format
that I think is missing from this arena. A MIDI for text if you will.
 
Some W3C members have expressed opposition to going beyond this assignment,
i.e., to go towards an AFXP oriented solution.
I cannot see personally a rationale for opposing the development of a more
semantic format for timed text, unless it is that it is seen as a dilution
of efforts in other directions (XHTML2?). I thought the push was 'for' the
semantic web not against it!
 
The TT WG has compromised by first focusing on the former, and then the
latter. I am preparing a 1st draft of AFXP to present to the WG during its
upcoming F2F. If all goes well, it will be published not long after. Current
plans are to write it as a delta on top of DFXP.
I am glad that AFXP is still in the pipeline.
 
regards,
 
John Birch



-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com]
Sent: 18 March 2005 00:01
To: John Birch; public-tt@w3.org
Subject: RE: Timed Text Authoring Format - Distribution Format Exchange Pr
ofile (DFXP)



 

 


  _____  


From: John Birch [mailto:johnb@screen.subtitling.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:35 PM
To: public-tt@w3.org
Subject: Re: Timed Text Authoring Format - Distribution Format Exchange Pr
ofile (DFXP)

 

DFXP will be an adequate format for interchange of existing file formats,
[they also have the same limitation (they are presentational not semantic)],
but existing file formats can already be interchanged.

 

But not by using a standards based interchange format composed from XML,
which, after all, was the initial assignment given to the TT WG to solve.
Some W3C members have expressed opposition to going beyond this assignment,
i.e., to go towards an AFXP oriented solution. The TT WG has compromised by
first focusing on the former, and then the latter. I am preparing a 1st
draft of AFXP to present to the WG during its upcoming F2F. If all goes
well, it will be published not long after. Current plans are to write it as
a delta on top of DFXP.

 

G.

 
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 09:07:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:32 GMT