- From: Glenn A. Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:43:07 -0400
- To: "Samuel CRUZ-LARA" <Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr>, <public-tt@w3.org>
- Cc: "Thierry MICHEL" <tmichel@w3.org>
Samuel, Thank you for considering the DFXP formulation of the Timed Text Authoring Format. Perhaps some background will be useful for better understanding: 1. the requirement for parallel language representations of a single logical document in the context of a single document instance was discussed and included in TTAF1.0 requirements (see R201); explicit support for this was ruled out in DFXP, which is intended to satisfy a high priority subset of requirements that relate to interchange of legacy content; the conclusion of the WG was that it would be better to use multiple DFXP document instances to represent multiple language representations; it remains feasible to define a more complete profile of TTAF1.0 in the future, such as the AFXP (Authoring Format Exchange Profile) that was considered in earlier drafts, but, at this time, has taken a back seat due to insufficient member support; 2. no discussion occurred on the issue of how to explicitly synchronize content between multiple language instances; this potential requirement (which may be implied in your work) was not submitted for WG consideration; 3. requirement R203, regarding natural language association granularity, was intended to support only course grained linguistic attribution, and, indeed, xml:lang satisfied this basic requirement; it remains possible for a user of DFXP to make use of the ttm:role attribute while using extension tokens (i.e., "x-*") to denote application specific bindings; 4. the TTWG did perform a cursory review of the functionality defined by TEI (text encoding initiative) that could have formed the basis for additional requirements or solutions, however, no consensus was reached on adding any of its functionality; The TTWG remains open to you (and others) bringing new requirements to the group for consideration; however, at this juncture, it is probably safe to say that DFXP itself is closed for the purpose of considering new requirements unless their absence negatively impacts the basic goals of DFXP. Regards, Glenn Adams Chair TTWG -----Original Message----- From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Samuel CRUZ-LARA Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 2:18 AM To: public-tt@w3.org Cc: Thierry MICHEL Subject: Some general remarks about TimedText DFXP Dear all, Enclosed you will find a PDF document containing some general remarks about TimedText DFXP. Best regards, Samuel Cruz-Lara LORIA / INRIA Lorraine Samuel.Cruz-Lara@inria.fr
Received on Monday, 31 July 2006 12:43:27 UTC