RE: TT and subtitling

	> I would prefer to state my position :-) as "semantic markup
vocabulary should be avoided where possible"   

[GAA> ]Is your concern that (1) all useful semantic markup can't be
predefined; or (2) no semantic markup should be defined.  If
it is the former, then that can be dealt with readily by proper
use of namespaces and schema validation.
[JB> ] I certainly agree with 1.

[GAA> ]My present view is that if there are a small number of
common semantic attributions that can be defined and that
support existing usage, then we should consider their inclusion.
[JB> ] But the use of this markup should be optional. If that was the case
then I would have no issue with it's inclusion, but would question its
usefulness, since optional tags **tend** to be ignored.

[GAA> ]One way we may handle your desire to have something specify
*only* the timing aspects is to produce our results in a modular
form, so that for those applications that only want timing, then
they could make use of only the module that defines it (along
with any prerequisite framework module).
[JB> ] Sounds interesting - would this be along the lines of the MPEG
profiles? 

	> It may be necessary to include markup that has semantic
implications, for example hidden text 
	that provides definitions of terms, expansions of acronyms etc. 
	> The M.D.<hidden-hover>Managing Director<\hidden-hover> of Blah
corporation today....  

[GAA> ]This is stylistic mark, not semantics markup). 

[JB> ]  Apologies for the poor example :-( 
The semantic meaning was intended to be 'this is a definition'
The stylistic meaning was intended to be 'this text is displayed in style
hidden-hover'

I'll try another :-)
The markup <caption> could IMHO have both semantic and stylistic
implications.

regards John Birch

The views and opinions expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily
reflect the views and opinions of Screen Subtitling Systems Limited.

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:06:49 UTC