- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:23:00 +0800
- To: "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "Dick Bulterman" <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>, "Geoff Freed" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Cc: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "markku.hakkinen@gmail.com" <markku.hakkinen@gmail.com>, "symm@w3.org" <symm@w3.org>
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:14:23 +0800, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote: > On 2/22/10 4:03 AM, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:18:00 +0800, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Earlier Silvia asked if others would be responding. I've been following >> this thread closely and have some thoughts and opinions to add to the >> discussion. >> >> >> Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >>> I think we should have one extremely simple format like SRT right now >>> and >>> eventually one on the far other end of the scale that can handle all >>> current use cases and is extensible for the future in some fashion. >> >> I think that "eventually" will be a lot closer than you might be giving >> it >> credit for. I am already producing a rudimentary DFXP file from the >> Stanford >> Captioning system - the file being auto-generated from accurate >> transcription text files. Since machines can generate XML marked files >> as >> easily as SRT, the question of 'ease of authoring' will likely become >> moot >> sooner than later. Given the obvious benefits of XML marked files w.r.t. >> the >> styling, accessibility, etc. there will likely be a move towards a >> richer >> markup of the transcripts early on, especially for large commercial >> producers. (Impending legislation such as H.R. 3101 will have a huge >> impact >> in the US on advancing this if/when passed into law) > > The time-consuming part isn't authoring but implementation. DFXP is quite > big and for there to be any advantage over SRT the styling needs to be > supported. I don't want to exaggerate the difficulty, but years before > there are implementations in several browsers really doesn't seem > unreasonable. Only if all browser vendors agree to make format X high > priority and spend a lot of resources on it will things be any different. > > GF: I don't doubt that the implementation is difficult. But if the > simple implementation is given priority, how likely is it that the > complex implementation will follow? Is it likely that Opera would make > a high-priority commitment to the complex implementation? Would other > vendors represented on this list be able to make a similar commitment? I'm really not in a position to promise anything (including SRT), I'm only saying what I hope will happen. What is prioritized of course depends on what users and customers ask for, and I have no idea at this point how big the demand for any particular format is. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 06:23:49 UTC