W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Alternate syntax for required features.

From: Glenn A. Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:46:16 +0800
To: John Birch <john.birch@screen.subtitling.com>, <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C60CF538.A36D%gadams@xfsi.com>

have  you read appendix E in the current editoršs draft? especially tables
E-2 and E-3? this material has been available for review since Jan 30... but
you may be behind in your reading...

On 4/16/09 2:07 PM, "John Birch" <john.birch@screen.subtitling.com> wrote:

> I personally would like to see is some example use of the profile mechanism
> **within** the current specification. Is it possible to create a minimal set
> of dfxp features (perhaps that closely match the ccforflash implementation for
> example) that could be 'termed' dfxp-lite and to declare that within the spec
> ??
> With respect,
> John
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2009 06:47:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:04 UTC