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

RE: [DFXP LC Comment] Some questions (was: Re: [tt] Some questions)

From: Glenn A. Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:10:23 -0500
Message-ID: <7249D02C4D2DFD4D80F2E040E8CAF37C0E9097@longxuyen.xfsi.com>
To: <Johnb@screen.subtitling.com>, <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: <public-tt@w3.org>
To reiterate: DFXP is not intended to satisfy all needs w.r.t. TT AF.
The full capabilities of TT AF will only appear and be solvable by using
DFXP, AFXP, or both DFXP and AFXP together. It is sub-optimal to
prematurely have DFXP satisfy requirements  that have been explicitly
ruled out of scope. I can only counsel patience... But you can be
certain that the TT WG will be loathe to introduce new functionality
into DFXP that we have just carefully excised.

 

G.

 

  _____  

From: Johnb@screen.subtitling.com [mailto:Johnb@screen.subtitling.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:20 AM
To: fora@annevankesteren.nl; Glenn A. Adams
Cc: public-tt@w3.org
Subject: RE: [DFXP LC Comment] Some questions (was: Re: [tt] Some
questions)

 

Anne, 

I am a proponent of the elimination of inline style, and very much
favour the use of style sheets and applicative or associative style.
There are few cases where style is truly information - but I can think
of some.

For example, the Coca Cola logo is white text on a red background - not
because red or white have any semantic association, but because that is
the trademark style for that logo.

So there is a place for purely presentational style. 
In my area of interest (TV subtitling) however, style is NOT a
presentation issue, but a means to convey extra information along with
the text (such as speaker identity, shouting etc).

As Glenn states, the TTAF WG have met the requirement to represent style
as XML. 
I guess you would agree with me however, that the limitations of the
DFXP style mechanism make that representation less useful than it could
be.

regards John Birch. 

 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:fora@annevankesteren.nl] 
Sent: 22 March 2005 13:41 
To: Glenn A. Adams 
Cc: public-tt@w3.org 
Subject: Re: [DFXP LC Comment] Some questions (was: Re: [tt] Some 
questions) 

 

Glenn A. Adams wrote: 
> [GA] Sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was inviting you to make a 
> persuasive argument for use of xml:id that I could take back to the
WG. 
> I am not prepared to make such an argument, particularly since I am
one 
> who would need to be convinced of using xml:id. 

It would remove the need for a validating parser to recognize the 'id' 
attribute is of type ID. 

 

> A requirement of TT AF was that all information be represented as XML.

> We believe we have satisfied that requirement. 

Styling isn't really information. You could have distinquished it as 
such, but that might be a wrong observation. Moving styling inside the 
document takes away the advantages of user specific style sheet or style

sheet switching where the author could provide multiple styles for the 
same page and leave the choice to the user. 

Embedding everything in the document takes away all those advantages and

clutters the semantics, just like <font> did. 

 

-- 
  Anne van Kesteren 
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:10:16 GMT

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