W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Work in Progress on a new Timed Text Working Group Charter (Advance Notice)

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:55:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fdvHkmJ3Cc=6eAW+cUuiE11Jyv1xbuy_51+GptJ8BM=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
David,

I just noticed your message at [1].

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2013AprJun/0136.html

I do hope you realize that your claim that "such as bringing in XSL-FO" is
either wrong or misleading (depending on what you mean by "bringing in").
XSL-FO is used only for didactic purposes to specify a formatting semantics
model for TTML. Work is underway in the TTWG now to define an equivalent
HTML/CSS model.

As such, there is no added complexity here other than perhaps for readers
not familiar with XSL-FO. In any case, it doesn't imply any added
complexity for an implementation.

Further, your claim about "much more traction" is equally wrong if you
include the commercial and professional video services space, where TTML is
the predominant format. Nobody in that domain is authoring in VTT, and any
use of VTT is nothing more than an impedance mismatch and an additional
burden.

These arguments about only one format are not consistent with the Open Web
Platform. That's not the way the web works, nor the way that humans work.
If this argument were to be applied, then HTML5 would not have both XHTML
and HTML syntax, it would not have both SVG and Canvas2D; browsers wouldn't
have both H.264 and WebM, and wouldn't have both PNG and JPEG.

Nothing about working or defining both formats poses an obligation on
browser vendors, who are ultimately free to implement whatever they wish.

Regards,
Glenn
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 00:56:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 May 2013 00:56:12 UTC