W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2010

[Bug 10320] [WebSRT voice] Allow an arbitrary string as the voice for forwards compatilbity

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:00:08 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P6HnM-000310-Co@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10320

--- Comment #17 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-10-14 07:00:06 UTC ---
At this point I'm leaning towards replacing the voice mechanism with <v foo>,
where "foo" is any character name or other appropriate voice identifier. I
think it might make sense to drop the hard-coded ones like <sound> and
<narrator> and just have them be voices too, as in <v sfx> or <v narrator>. The
<v foo> construct would only be allowed at the "top level" of a cue, and the
</v> would be optional if the <v> was the first thing in the cue.

I am not sure it makes sense to have the same timed track for captions and
subtitles, that seems like one of those things that sounds clever to software
engineers like us but in practice is not that great (case in point, as far as I
know it's never been done before). We could, though, in the future, introduce a
new kind of cue that the browser could then offer either as a subtitle track or
a caption track, with the subtitle version having certain things hidden and the
caption track having character names shown in some cases, or some such.

For the specific example of "<v Mary><sound>cough", in practice most captions
I've seen would instead use <v desc>Mary coughs</v>" or some such, in italics,
not the word "cough" in a special colour or anything. But my experience here is
admittedly limited.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 07:00:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:31 UTC