RE: [tt-af-1-0-req] Some (late) comments on the requirements

Sean et al,

Hi Sean,

comments inline :-)

> I agree with Bert that there is definitely a balance to be struck
> between a simple format which will be well received, and an all
> encompassing monster solution which won't. However I at least see TT
> being more than just a caption/subtitle format, and definitely expanding
> into other areas of accessibility such as talking books. I don't see it
> being competitive with SVG or SMIL; but being coexistent with them and
> probably reusing some tools of those systems.

Yes, not competitive with SVG, but should IMHO allow SVG as external content
by
reference. This probably covers most of the esoterics, without TTAF having
to 
provide mechanisms. I might even go as far as saying that TTAF does not need
animation, in that SVG content covers what you might want to use animation
for.
I.e. promote SVG as the catch all for complex presentation?

> I want to reiterate the AF in TT-AF, this is a language for expressing
> authorial intention. It is not intended for deployment (although we
> haven't ruled out the latter usage, it is certainly not a primary
> concern). If profiles fall out of the language it will be because
> certain communities of users (such as caption houses) find a subset of
> the tools available useful, and need not necessarily be a 
> feature of the schema itself.

Absolutely - it is most important that this (authorial intent) is the
primary focus,
both from accessibility point of view, and from the perspective of
creating a generic precursor format for all timed text activities.

However, I think it might require a co-ordinated effort to produce profiles
under the auspices of a 'standards body', it won't happen if left to the
industry....
Or rather - there will be many overlapping profiles :-)

> As I see it the TTWG role is to sift and combine the various existing
> systems both in and out of the W3C to create a workable system that is
> well geared to a variety of scenarios where the timed presentation of
> text is the common theme, some of the tools that that implies are
> already well established in W3C, some are not, or are not well
> integrated. 

Exactly - SMIL, SVG, CSS (XSL/FO)

I see TTAF as more of a profiles exercise than anything else, i.e.
I actually feel it is more a case of saying, we want this from CSS but not
this,
we want this from SVG but not this.... etc.

> Only time will tell if we bite off a manageable lump of complexity, to
> hit a sweet spot.

See other recent post... unfortunately there may be multiple sweet spots.

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.