- From: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:41:22 -0800
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Feb 22, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > What do you think about smilText compared to DFXP? It has been > stipulated that smilText may be easier to integrate with HTML. That may be, but I don't see that as sufficient reason to choose it over DFXP. For that to be a selling point, I think it'd have to be more tightly integrated with HTML5 than I think either the Editor or the implementers on this list are interested in. But that's just MHO. If we're talking about inserting code directly into the HTML DOM, from what I've seen of it, I think smilText and DFXP are a wash. Syntactically, though, DFXP is _much_ more HTML-like. By which I mean, it's HTML (head, body, div, span, p, br) with media-specific attributes. For content producers who are already familiar with HTML, DFXP would quite likely be easier to grok than either smilText or SRT. - m
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 22:41:58 UTC