RE: [media] WHATWG started requirements collection for time-aligned text

It seems to me that we are once again heading towards the impasse that happened when trying to bless a single video and audio codec. It seems likely to me that the solution should focus on how the association is made, where it shows up, and if necessary (which I don't think it is) any API or event model associated, and not get bogged down in which format has the most friends.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Eric Carlson
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:55 PM
To: Dick Bulterman
Cc: Ian Hickson; HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Re: [media] WHATWG started requirements collection for time-aligned text


On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:12 AM, Dick Bulterman wrote:

> On the timed text tracks, I would (once again) like to suggest that rather than inventing yet another form of timed text, the WHATWG look at the work on smilText. This format can be dropped into HTML-5 with little or no change and provides the following advantages:
> 1. It supports absoulte and relative timing of text fragments, 2. It 
> allows CSS to be used for styling text objects 3. It is intuitive for 
> hand-authors, but can also be generated 4. It is structured into a 
> basic module, a styling module and a text motion module, so that 
> growth is possbile 5. It can be supported in an external file as a streaming format or in-line.
> 
> The disadvantages?
> 1. It was not invented by this group.
> 
  How is this a disadvantage?

  Or are just being snarky? If so, how does that help us make a decision - how does it encourage anyone to consider your proposal?

eric

Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 15:24:23 UTC