W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Timed Text roles

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:56:23 +0100
Message-ID: <470E47A7.5060401@googlemail.com>
To: "Glenn A. Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>
CC: public-tt@w3.org, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Glenn A. Adams wrote:
> The roles are, at present, intended to be "standard" only in the sense
> that there is a "stsandard" set of keywords. What those keywords mean is
> up to the author(s). I agree that this does not permit interoperable
> interchange of semantics, but it does permit interoperable interchange
> of symbols as such.

I don't understand how having a standard set of keywords plus an open 
set of x- prefixed keywords permits more "interoperable interchange of 
symbols" than having a completely open set of keywords as with the HTML 
4.01 class attribute, nor do I understand the purpose of interchanging 
symbols without a reliable interchange of semantics (whether that 
reliability is local to a particular set of authors or global to all 

> Just think about what the <strong/> or <em/> tags
> mean in HTML. How would you define them in a meaningful way?

For my money, all of the following attempts at explaining emphasis 
elements are more useful than failing to define them at all:







> It would be going overboard to recommend that authors NOT use these
> keywords if they can find a meaningful use for them. If some group of
> authors and some group of recipients should wish to define a profile
> that provides further semantics or context, then there is nothing to
> prevent doing this. Many standards define facilities that for effective
> interchange requires profiling.

Absolutely, but for this there is no need for a standard set of 
keywords. Witness class and microformats!

Could one "an author defined sub-profile" to indicate what set of 
semantics is in use?


> However, if you would like to propose a set of definitions for
> standardization, then please feel free to do so, and I will make sure
> that the TTWG considers them.

If we did that, would sub-profiles be able to override standard 
definitions or merely add new keywords?

> But even then, how would you enforce consistent use with such definitions?

By referring an author or consumer who uses or interprets the keywords 
incorrectly to the specification, same as with any other authoring or 
parsing error.

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 15:56:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:02 UTC