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

RE: Timed Text Authoring Format - Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP) Streaming

From: Sean Hayes <shayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:23:30 +0100
Message-ID: <2E8E7EA6DA6DF24F853D296CAB3BB31B01F8F3E3@EUR-MSG-11.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Glenn A. Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>, <Johnb@screen.subtitling.com>
Cc: <public-tt@w3.org>
OK its not 'wrong', it just describes a language which is different to
DFXP (a superset in fact).

The fact that use words out of order I can, may lead to confusion.

 

________________________________

From: Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com] 
Sent: 29 March 2005 09:20
To: Sean Hayes; Johnb@screen.subtitling.com
Cc: public-tt@w3.org
Subject: RE: Timed Text Authoring Format - Distribution Format Exchange
Profile (DFXP) Streaming

 

You may be abusing the word "wrong" a bit. I'm not aware of anything
wrong with the XSD schema. The fact that someone may or has
misinterpreted the role of the schema and the potential difference
between schema defined content models and spec defined content models is
not a matter of "wrong" when it comes to the spec or schema.

 

As for the <meta/> element, ttm:* metadata elements, and ttm:* metadata
attributes, they serve different, and orthogonal purposes.

 

 

________________________________

From: Sean Hayes [mailto:shayes@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:15 PM
To: Johnb@screen.subtitling.com
Cc: Glenn A. Adams; public-tt@w3.org
Subject: RE: Timed Text Authoring Format - Distribution Format Exchange
Pr ofile (DFXP) Streaming

 

John, I think you exemplify exactly the kind of person I mean. You read
the spec, pretty carefully in fact, and you made some assumptions that
turned out incorrect - as many reasonable people are likely to do.

 

As you say, probably only a handful of people are ever going to read the
XSD in detail and two of them are on this thread. So if it is wrong,
then it needs to be labeled as such in big letters. If we provide short
cuts to understanding, then in my opinion they need to be right.

 

I'm actually struggling to remember why meta had to come at the start in
any case, especially if there can be more than one. It seems like an
unnecessary restriction to me and just makes life complicated. 

 

I think there are cases where you want to be able to use meta attributes
and cases where you want meta elements, so we do need to support both.

 

________________________________

From: Johnb@screen.subtitling.com [mailto:Johnb@screen.subtitling.com] 
Sent: 29 March 2005 08:58
To: Sean Hayes
Cc: gadams@xfsi.com; public-tt@w3.org
Subject: RE: Timed Text Authoring Format - Distribution Format Exchange
Pr ofile (DFXP) Streaming

 

Sean,

 

It's not that I didn't read it.....I interpreted the spec incorrectly.
When I saw Meta.class in the XML representation I interpreted that as
meaning that the element could take attributes from the metadata
attribute vocabulary.

 

Having just re-read the spec I am now even more unsure as to why you can
include any attributes from the TT:Metadata namespace within most
content elements and also be able to include multiple meta elements?
Would it not be clearer just to allow metadata only in meta elements? or
only as attributes within elements? NOT both?

 

Actually I'd suggest that the spec may be clear to the authors - but
perhaps not so clear to the rest of us mortals :-)

 

Sometimes you need to state things in 'real world' terms - and in the
right places.

 

Remember - most implementors will not be schema gurus - or even XML
lawyers.......

 

I have the benefit of having been involved in some of the discussions,
and of having an idea of some of the ambitions of the WG.

BUT most of the implementors will give the spec a cursory glance and
then implement based on any sample file using DFXP they can find....

You'll be lucky if they even look at the XSD IMO.

 

IMO If some part of the XSD is qualified by normative text outside of
that XSD - there should **at least** be a comment within the XSD to that
effect.

 

John

  
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 17:24:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:33 GMT