- From: <Johnb@screen.subtitling.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:19:09 -0000
- To: joeclark@joeclark.org
- Cc: public-tt@w3.org
Joe Clark wrote: > > Personally I feel that in most cases the cause is lost for > >existing **emission systems** (e.g. TV, DAB, DVD) adopting TT. > Not at the authoring level and at a level midway between authoring > and emission. Absolutely - TT will hopefully be ideal for authoring, storage, QA and pre-transmission manipulation. > Case in point: I know one broadcaster that has the idea (not a very > solid one, in my view) of converting all subtitling and even closed > captioning to Microsoft Word files (!) that are simply pushed through > at airtime, rather comparable to live-display captioning. Hmmm! > >Current multimedia standards (eg SMIL) are generally not appropriate > >for subtitling. > That's a tad broad. By subtitling I am referring to my admittedly narrow perspective of subtitling and captioning of broadcast video. I have looked at SMIL and Quicktime and cannot see how to reconcile the timing aspects of these standards with the timecode in an external broadcast signal (where the timecode may be discontinuous due to advert insertion). Comments please? 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 Thursday, 6 February 2003 06:10:20 UTC