- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:18:51 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
You are right - XSL-FO has not been explicitly spelled out as a problem with TTML. Instead, it has been subsumed under "The XML root of TTML is seen as a problem by some implementers and authors.". It is probably worth adding these objections explicitly rather than staying vague about them. Regards, Silvia. On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Dec 17, 2010, at 20:15, Janina Sajka wrote: > >> The comparison summary document is available at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Comparison_Overview > > I obverse that the comparison fails to mention the use of a formatting model (XSL-FO) that isn't already implemented by browser engines as an "issue" for TTML (and fails to mention the use of the CSS formatting model as a strength of WebSRT/WebVTT). This is a rather central omission in the comparison. > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > > >
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 09:20:33 UTC