- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:22:45 +1100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-texttracks@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> The fact is that roll-up captions are a standard means in which TV >> captions have been provided in the past and that publishers want these >> replicated in exactly the same way on the Web. This is why YouTube had >> to develop this feature, too. Since we are making WebVTT a universal >> format in which all existing captioning from TV can be represented on >> the Web, too, we have to support this case. > > WebVTT is definitely _not_ a format "in which all existing captioning from > TV can be represented on the Web". > > The Web is its own medium. We shouldn't be adopting all the mistakes of > past mediums. We can't ignore existing video and their captions. Also, the roll-up format is not a mistake. While it was developed for live captioning, these captions are recorded and re-broadcast as canned captions, too, so you can't really state that this format is only used for live captioning. >> Captions are a legal part of a video - if you want to present a video on >> the Web identically to how it has been authored, we need this support, >> otherwise it's not the same artistic object and sites run into copyright >> issues. > > I don't buy that for a minute. If you can get the permission to publish > the content in the first place, you can get the permission to publish it > using the Web's technologies. Only if you replicated it identically. Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 00:23:41 UTC