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

Re: beginEnd002: par timeContainer and child with no duration

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:31:13 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830812161231l3bee64f8j87fbb8e6ac24b53e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Geoff Freed" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Cc: "Glenn A. Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>, "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>

Fair enough - I understand that issue very well.
Regards,
Silvia.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote:
>
> Funding.  ccPlayer and CCforFlash have limited resources attached to them.
>  While we await new funding we'll keep track of non-conformance areas and
> address those problems when we are able.
>
> geoff
>
>
>
> On 12/16/08 7:14 AM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If ccPlayer is non-conformant, what is the problem about asking the
> developers to fix the implementation? Excuse me for sounding naive and
> having missed the history of TimedText and ccPlayer, but I would
> assume that a non-conformant implementation should just be exposed as
> such and be fixed.
>
> Regards,
> Silvia.
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> well, granted it's not the strongest of cases and would, as others have
>> pointed out, lead to ambiguous timing situations, but i wanted to float the
>> proposal anyhow.  ccplayer's behavior with regards to captions having begin
>> with no dur or end may be problematic in the test cases, however.
>>
>> onward...
>>
>> g.
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Glenn A. Adams [gadams@xfsi.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:29 PM
>> To: Silvia Pfeiffer; Geoff Freed
>> Cc: Sean Hayes; public-tt@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: beginEnd002: par timeContainer and child with no duration
>>
>> I also agree with Silvia, and would oppose the change suggested by
>> Geoff. The proposed change would be a significant departure from SMIL
>> timing semantics, which we have tried to maintain.
>>
>> Geoff, a better way for you to express what you want would be:
>>
>> <div timeContainer="seq">
>> <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>0</p>
>> <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>1</p>
>> <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>2</p>
>> <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>3</p>
>> ...
>> <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>10</p>
>> <p end='10s'>This test is over.</p>
>> </div>
>>
>> G.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Silvia
>>> Pfeiffer
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:41 AM
>>> To: Geoff Freed
>>> Cc: Sean Hayes; public-tt@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: beginEnd002: par timeContainer and child with no duration
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > i agree with sean's explanation, as this is the expected behavior
>> according to dfxp
>>> now.  however, when we built ccplayer we implemented things a bit
>> differently-- that is,
>>> a caption that has a begin time but no end time or dur will display
>> until the next
>>> caption displays.  at that time, the first caption will erase just
>> before the next
>>> caption appears.  so in the case of this:
>>> >
>>> >      <p begin='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10
>> seconds.<br/>1</p>
>>> >      <p begin='2s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10
>> seconds.<br/>2</p>
>>> >      <p begin='3s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10
>> seconds.<br/>3</p>
>>> >
>>> > the first caption appears at 1s and is displayed until 2s, at which
>> time it erases and
>>> the second caption displays.  at 3s, the second caption erases and the
>> third caption
>>> displays.  etc., etc.  in dfxp terms, that equals this:
>>> >
>>> >      <p begin='1s' end='2s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10
>> seconds.<br/>1</p>
>>> >      <p begin='2s' end='3s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10
>> seconds.<br/>2</p>
>>> >      <p begin='3s' end='4s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10
>> seconds.<br/>3</p>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > we did things this way because caption software has not always
>> depended on end times
>>> to erase captions when the captions are timed to appear sequentially
>> without pause.
>>> >
>>> > doing things the first way means less coding, which is convenient.
>> i would lobby for
>>> changing the spec, if it's not a big pain, to permit this behavior not
>> only because it's
>>> less work, but also because caption vendors will probably expect to be
>> able to do things
>>> this way.
>>>
>>> I respectfully disagree.
>>>
>>> To me, upon first reading the first example, it was clear that this
>>> would add a new caption every second, but not remove any of the ones
>>> before. This is a very convenient way of specifying a default end
>>> value of "this last until the video ends whenever it ends". The best
>>> means to support this is by not giving an end value and therefore
>>> allowing it to last "forever". And it allows to have overlapping timed
>>> text that lasts until the end.
>>>
>>> I think that if you wanted a text removed at a certain time, you'd
>>> have to provide an end time. Otherwise you are open to all sorts of
>>> misunderstandings. For example, what would you do with a specification
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> <p begin='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>1</p>
>>> <p begin='2s' end='4s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10
>> seconds.<br/>2</p>
>>> <p begin='3s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>3</p>
>>> <p begin='3s' end='4s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10
>> seconds.<br/>4</p>
>>>
>>> Would the third one appear at all?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 20:31:48 GMT

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