W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > December 2008

RE: new issue? dfxp and language selection

From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:12:50 -0800
Message-Id: <p0624088ec55c8a5dacd4@[17.202.35.52]>
To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, geoff freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, John Birch <john.birch@screen.subtitling.com>, "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>

At 18:26  +0000 3/12/08, Sean Hayes wrote:
>OK so what ccPlayer is doing is incorrect from a DFXP standpoint 
>(since it would incorrectly remove the quote example I referred to 
>earlier), but demonstrates there is a need that is not being 
>satisfied by DFXP.
>
>So I would say we need to poll the group with the following:
>
>Should we:
>
>a) change the spec to allow the xml:lang pruning as done by ccPlayer 
>as valid DFXP processing
>b) create another mechanism to do this.
>c) Punt for v-next.

Unusual for me to pitch-in, but I think if you want pruning, not 
annotation, you ought to say so explicitly.  An example would be a 
SMIL switch on the user's language:  clearly a 'choose one' statement.



>
>Sean Hayes
>Media Accessibility Strategist
>Accessibility Business Unit
>Microsoft
>
>Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
>Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: geoff freed [mailto:geoff_freed@wgbh.org]
>Sent: 03 December 2008 18:14
>To: John Birch; public-tt@w3.org
>Cc: Sean Hayes; Philippe Le Hegaret
>Subject: Re: new issue? dfxp and language selection
>
>
>John said:
>>  The fact that it doesn't comply with the intention of DFXP perhaps
>>  illustrates a divergence between the requirements of the 'real world'
>>  and our spec?
>
>and Sean said earlier:
>
>>  In earlier discussions I believe we came to the conclusion that for
>>  multi lingual scenarios, it would be better to have separate files for
>>  each language.
>
>
>What John says fairly sums up why we implemented xml:lang the way we
>did:  we thought it would be more effective, from an authoring and
>file-tracking or maintenance standpoint, to keep all the languages in
>a single file.  Essentially ccPlayer looks at the file and, if it sees
>xml:lang, takes the language identifier and plugs it into a menu in
>the player.  Everything is in one place.
>
>Note that I am not against the use of separate files for each
>language.  However, this isn't something we'll be able to support in
>ccPlayer in the near future.
>
>
>>  But I don't see it as an issue for xml:lang... Surely it's an issue
>>  for
>>  'our' definition of the meaning of div.
>>  The question as I see it is... Is it meaningful to select on the basis
>>  of div elements (as in CCForFLASH) or conversely....
>>  Is it 'meaningful' / useful to use multiple div elements in a DFXP
>>  document with the presumption that they all display simultaneously.
>
>The latter statement also applies to ccPlayer, since we don't support
>multiple regions.  We therefore found it useful to use multiple divs
>for multiple *languages.*
>
>g.
>
>
>On Dec 3, 2008, at 12:32 PM, John Birch wrote:
>
>>
>>  I personally find the cc player implementation to be quite
>>  appropriate... It's lightweight and effective.
>>  The fact that it doesn't comply with the intention of DFXP perhaps
>>  illustrates a divergence between the requirements of the 'real world'
>>  and our spec?
>>
>>  It is a fact (clearly demonstrated by the CCforFlash implementation
>>  and
>>  indeed by real world multimedia e.g. Digital TV broadcasts in Europe),
>>  that multiple languages are required to be supported by the media. Two
>>  points appear valid here... A) DFXP was originally targetted at
>>  authoring...And in that context a predominant single language is by
>>  far
>>  the most common and B) I recall discussion that for multi-language
>>  support it was suggested that the external container would index
>>  multiple DFXP documents as necessary. I don't recall such guidance in
>>  our spec however (admittedly I haven't checked)...and clearly the
>>  implementors of CCForFLASH took a different view :-)
>>
>>  However, given that this and other? implementations appear to be using
>>  DFXP for both authoring and transmission, I suggest that it would be
>>  valid to examine how easily the spec could be adjusted to accommodate
>>  both the authoring and transmission scenarios...
>  >
>>  But I don't see it as an issue for xml:lang... Surely it's an issue
>>  for
>>  'our' definition of the meaning of div.
>>  The question as I see it is... Is it meaningful to select on the basis
>>  of div elements (as in CCForFLASH) or conversely....
>>  Is it 'meaningful' / useful to use multiple div elements in a DFXP
>>  document with the presumption that they all display simultaneously.
>>
>>
>>  John
>>
>>
>>  John Birch | Screen Subtitling Systems Ltd | Strategic Partnerships
>>  Manager
>>  Main Line : +44 (0)1473 831700 | Ext : 270 | Office :
>>  Mobile: +44 (0)7919 558380 | Fax: +44 (0)1473 830078
>>  john.birch@screen.subtitling.com | www.screen.subtitling.com
>>  The Old Rectory, Claydon Curch Lane, Claydon,Ipswich,IP6 0EQ,United
>>  Kingdom
>>
>>
>>  See us at Broadcast Video Expo - February 17th - 19th 2009, Earls
>>  Court 2, London, Stand number K56
>>
>>
>>  Before Printing, think about the environment
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On
>>  Behalf Of Sean Hayes
>>  Sent: 03 December 2008 16:58
>>  To: Philippe Le Hegaret; public-tt@w3.org
>>  Subject: RE: new issue? dfxp and language selection
>>
>>
>>  In earlier discussions I believe we came to the conclusion that for
>>  multi lingual scenarios, it would be better to have separate files for
>>  each language. The xml:lang usage on elements was to clarify the use
>>  where one was momentarily switching languages, e.g. in a quotation,
>>  but
>>  where it was part of the same discourse.
>>
>>  I think in fact the ccPlayer behaviour fails to adhere to the
>>  processing
>>  specified by section 9.3, which does not specify tree pruning based on
>>  language, and thus is not acting in accordance with the spec which
>>  would
>>  require simultaneous presentation of all three languages.
>>
>>  We can certainly clarify this in the definition of the xml:lang
>>  attribute, but I believe we should track this as an implementation
>>  error
>>  by ccPlayer.
>>
>>  Sean Hayes
>>  Media Accessibility Strategist
>>  Accessibility Business Unit
>>  Microsoft
>>
>>  Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
>>  Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On
>>  Behalf Of Philippe Le Hegaret
>>  Sent: 03 December 2008 15:54
>>  To: public-tt@w3.org
>>  Subject: new issue? dfxp and language selection
>>
>>
>>  I noticed that the ccPlayer is able to handle multiple languages in
>>  the
>>  same document:
>>
>>  <body>
>>   <div xml:lang='en'>..</div>
>>   <div xml:lang='ja'>..</div>
>>   <div xml:lang='fr'>..</div>
>>   ...
>>  </body>
>>
>>  You can then select which language to display using the interface.
>>
>>  It's allowed by the specification but nothing there says that you can
>>  display only one language.
>>
>>  Do we need to say to say anything in the spec about such usage?
>>
>>  Philippe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>>  If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy,
>>  disclose or take any action based on this message or any information
>>  herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise
>>  the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.
>>  Thank you for your cooperation. Screen Subtitling Systems Ltd.
>>  Registered in England No. 2596832. Registered Office: The Old
>>  Rectory, Claydon Church Lane, Claydon, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP6 0EQ
>>


-- 
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 19:14:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:39 GMT