FW: Some comments on the requirements

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:39 AM
> To: Bert Bos; www-tt-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Some comments on the requirements
> 
> 
> 
> Just some comments on Bert's comments:
> 
> At 20:50 03/02/04 +0100, Bert Bos wrote:
> 
> >I Architecture
> >
> >2 Have a valid XML representation
> >
> >     Apart from the fact that this contradicts the first requirement
> >     ("simple and easy"), I think that limiting the syntax 
> up front is
> >     not very useful. Especially so, because of the 
> timed-text formats
> >     (and proposed formats) that I have seen so far, those that were
> >     not based on XML were by far the most elegant. (E.g, those of
> >     Quicktime and Mplayer.)
> >
> >8 Allow the language of the text to be identified using xml:lang
> >
> >     A corollary of the previous comment. The language 
> should indeed be
> >     identified somehow, but it could be by other means than XML.
> >     Indeed, it could be outside the document itself, e.g., 
> in an HTTP
> >     header.
> 
> HTTP headers won't work for mixed text. I think the great 
> benefit of using XML is that some basic problem (general 
> syntax, character encoding, xml:lang) are already well 
> solved. And I think that the above requirement 'have a valid 
> XML representation' doesn't even exclude alternative 
> representations (which I personally don't think are needed).
> 
> 
> >11 Have a default UNICODE font
> >
> >     Is it really a requirement to have a standard font? What font
> >     would that be? Arial? Maybe the intention was to 
> require that the
> >     format supports all Unicode characters, rather than a specific
> >     font?
> 
> It looks indeed like this requirement is rather unprecise.
> It may be that the format should support fallback behavior,
> or that it should require such behavior from applications.
> It maybe that it identifies a particular generic font name
> that is supposed to have complete Unicode coverage (but 
> 'complete Unicode coverage' is a moving target. Requiring 
> that the format supports all Unicode characters would be 
> pretty much obvious given the general Internationalization 
> policy at W3C, and not worth mentioning explicitly.
> 
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 20:26:26 UTC