Re: Use of Old TTML1.0 CR Namespace URIs

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de> wrote:

> Yes, I think this is very important. A lot of subtitle tools would support
> TTML 1.0 if they update  just  the namespace. Furthermore it is important
> that this is promoted as TTML support. A lot of vendors that use the old
> namespaces label the TTML feature still as DFXP. People in the domain not
> familiar with subject are not always  aware that what they know as DFXP is
> only a  different version of the same specification.
>

Clearly some user education is needed, though I wouldn't characterize DFXP
as a different version of TTML, but an historical synonym for TTML (that
still applies, and is used in the TTML spec).

These tool vendors have to be encouraged (as strongly as possible) to move
from their EA (early adopter) implementations of working drafts or other
non-REC form of TTML to the REC form, while taking into account what minor
changes are coming in 2nd Edition as well.





>
> Andreas
>
> Am 04.06.2013 um 04:54 schrieb Glenn Adams:
>
> I've been noticing some TTML content generators still using the old
> TTML1.0 CR namespace URIs, which used a prefix of:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1
>
> This was changed to the following with the publishing of the 3rd CR of
> TTML 1.0 on 2010-02-23:
>
> http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml
>
> This presents a significant interoperability issue for attempts to promote
> validated TTML1.0 content. Should the WG reach out to tool vendors to try
> to curtail this usage?
>
>
>