- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:08:08 +0100
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Please pardon the top posting, but I need to raise a different issue here. I don't understand how levels 0 through X are supposed to work in a standards specification sense. What are you all talking about? Are you saying Level 0 for Html 5, and level 1 for html 5.1? etc? If "yes," then we need to focus primarily on whether level 0 is sufficient to meet currently understood requirements--something not yet well specified, afaik. Given the time between html 4.01 and html 5, I'm disinclined to go this way. Now, what am I misunderstanding? Janina Silvia Pfeiffer writes: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:38:57 +0800, Silvia Pfeiffer > > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:38 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> I don't have a problem with DFXP, but I think we'll need to profile it -- > >>> it contains elements for support of (for example) 3GPP Timed Text, such as > >>> scroll-in, and also for out-of-time-order sequencing, neither of which I > >>> think we want in this case, do we? > >>> > >> > >> I agree about the need for profiling. I don't mind about the scroll-in > >> as long as we can map the 3GPP markup to some javascript action for > >> the browser. But this is definitely a feature of the more complex > >> kind. > >> > >> Most of the DFXP files I have seen so far in the wild are really simple. > >> > >> For example this one from Apple: > >> > >> http://www.apple.com/media/us/mac/imac/2009/tours/apple-imac-design_video-cc-us-20091111_cc.xml > >> which relates to http://www.apple.com/imac/ > >> is basically a SRT file with a default display style. (Ignore the > >> metadata element which they are using and which incidentally has > >> non-standard attributes). > >> > >> That default display style can easily be mapped onto a div and css, so > >> I would regard this as not very hard to implement. This markup could > >> be a level 0 profile. > >> > >> There is also some html formatting markup inside the <p> elements, > >> such as <br/>, <b> and <i>, which can just be kept for HTML (obivously > >> needs to be well parsed and filtered so as not to create security > >> issues). But we could also consider that as part of level 0. > >> > >> Then, level 0 provides the ability for externally provided styling and > >> for prettier text - a good improvement over SRT and not overly > >> challenging to implement I would think. > >> > >> Next, we can go through DFXP and add selective features that make > >> sense to create a level 1,2, and maybe make level 3 the full DFXP > >> spec. > >> > >> I would consider this as a viable way to create a path towards > >> introducing DFXP support in steps, which do not ask too much > >> implementation requirements of the browser vendors in one go. I'd be > >> curious what the browser vendors think about this! > > > > Does the spec allow for such profiling, or would partial implementations > > simply be non-conforming? > > I would say that the "baseline text codecs" that the <track> elements > support should be SRT and some profile of DFXP that still needs to be > defined. Then, if a browser supports higher levels, that's a bonus. > It's not guaranteed to work everywhere though, because it goes beyond > the baseline. The baseline would be conforming. > > I would avoid calling profiles "partial" implementations though. Yes, > they may be a subpart of the full spec, but they are fully functional > for use, so by no means "partial". That word choice would create the > wrong impressions IMO. > > It may be better to regard it as a potential upgrade path. If over > time browser vendors find that they need to support a higher profile, > because users are asking for it, they would implement support for that > higher profile. And then maybe the baseline in the standard can be > elevated in the next version of HTML (HTML6?), too, should that be > common consensus. > > Cheers, > Silvia. -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@rednote.net Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org Linux Foundation http://a11y.org Chair, Protocols & Formats Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 11:09:12 UTC