Re: on SRT...

On 2/25/10 7:28 AM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Janina,

You understood correctly.

Indeed, the level 0 has to be specified sufficiently to meet currently
understood requirements.

And also: there is no level 0 specified yet - it will take time and
effort to specify it such that
1. browser vendors are happy to implement support for it, and
2. currently understood accessibility requirements are met.
It will be a balance act - a typical standards body's work. :-)

As for the time it takes - well, DFXP isn't even in CR yet, so I don't
know how long it will take to specify the levels.

GF:  Actually, DFXP/TTML just entered another CR phase:  http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-ttaf1-dfxp-20100223/ .  The commentary period expires  March 23, 2010.


Assuming it can be
done fairly quickly, we can require browser vendors to support level 0
for this version of HTML and encourage them to support higher levels.
Nothing will hold them back from implementing higher levels before
another standard comes out. In this way, if all browser vendors charge
ahead, HTML 5.1 could e.g. already require e.g. level 3 out of 4.

What I am proposing here is a viable path forwards. If we try to push
for a full support of DFXP at this stage, we will get nothing - I
haven't heard of a single browser vendor who could be encouraged to
implementing full DFXP - they'd rather not implement it at all. It is
clear to me that a compromise is required. The staged approach that I
am proposing is this compromise.

If others have different ideas for a compromise, please do not
hesitate to offer them.

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> 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
>