Re: Media TextFormats Accessibility Comparison Summary Released

Dear media a11y members of the a11y TF,

I think Henry has made a valid observation and we should clarify the
boxes that talk about xml.

Here's what I suggest changing on the wiki page:

For TTML change the box that contains:
"The XML root of TTML is seen as a problem by some implementers and authors."
to
"The XML root of TTML is seen as a problem by some implementers and
authors. In particular the use of the XSL-FO formatting model which is
not already implemented by browser engines poses a major issue."

For WebSRT/WebVTT change the box that contains:
""Is not XML.""
to
""Is not XML." In particular it reuses the CSS formatting model rather
than XML-based formatting models."

Regards,
Silvia.


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 09:27:40 UTC