Re: Timed tracks

Philip Jägenstedt writes:
> As a member of the accessibility task force I'm a bit surprised to
> learn that we're still formulating requirements for captions. Who is
> working on this, have I completely missed something on the mailing
> list and when is it scheduled to be put forward to the HTML WG?


You are correct that we should have been finished with requirements.
However, the Media Subteam of the TF got sidetracked by format
discussions and never really did the requirements work. We have now
backed off for the very simple reason that we can't know what technology
is appropriate for our specifications if we don't know what are
requirements are. If we don't know what we need, how can we know we've
met the need?

The Media Subteam is now focused on requirements. In addition to the
Wiki and email we also work in a weekly teleconference Wednesdays at
22:00Z. Agendas have been posted on the TF list. Perhaps you missed
these?

We are expecting to conclude requirements work by the end of May.

Janina

> 
> About WebSRT, I agree that it's final home should perhaps not be in
> HTML5, but expect that when we get around to implementing <track> we
> will support WebSRT in both test and final implementations. Unless
> <track> explicitly forbids supporting some specific formats, I can't
> see a strong reason to do otherwise. This is not the official
> position of Opera Software (it has none), just mine.
> 
> Philip
> 
> On Fri, 07 May 2010 00:32:31 +0800, Geoff Freed
> <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Hi, Ian:
> >
> >I'm quite concerned that WebSRT has been inserted into the HTML5
> >editor's draft (http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/video.html#websrt )
> >when it hasn't been discussed in the accessibility sub-group.
> >There isn't any evidence, nor has there been any consensus as far
> >as I know, that this format is appropriate or fulfills any
> >requirements for captions or subtitles- requirements which are now
> >being formulated by the group but are not yet final. My immediate
> >opinion is that the introduction of WebSRT in this manner will
> >only cause confusion:  readers may take its inclusion as an
> >indicator that this format has W3C endorsement and is on an
> >approval track, and therefore can be used in test implementations.
> >In a field that is already overrun with timed-text formats, this
> >will only serve to confuse the situation further.  In fact, it
> >could be very difficult to reverse later.  In the interest of not
> >displacing or damaging the work being done by the accessibility
> >sub-group, I think it would be best to remove all references to
> >WebSRT from HTML5 documentation at this time.
> >
> >Geoff Freed
> >WGBH/NCAM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 5/5/10 5:10 PM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, 5 May 2010, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> >>
> >>while I appreciate your enthusiasm and time that you're spending on this
> >>issue, I'm surprised to see that you're incorporating a new captioning
> >>format in the HTML5 specification without discussing about it.
> >
> >We've been discussing this for close to a year now.
> >
> >
> >>imho, the HTML5 specification shouldn't attempt to define a new
> >>captioning for video:
> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/video.html#websrt
> >
> >It's not a new format; it's the format used by SubRip, with minor
> >extensions to handle features that were found to be needed during
> >research (such as vertical text, ruby, and karaoke).
> >
> >--
> >Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> >http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> >Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Philip Jägenstedt
> Core Developer
> Opera Software

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		sip:janina@asterisk.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 Friday, 7 May 2010 15:02:13 UTC