- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:14:06 +1100
- To: "Geoff Freed" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Cc: "Glenn A. Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>, "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
If ccPlayer is non-conformant, what is the problem about asking the developers to fix the implementation? Excuse me for sounding naive and having missed the history of TimedText and ccPlayer, but I would assume that a non-conformant implementation should just be exposed as such and be fixed. Regards, Silvia. On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote: > > > well, granted it's not the strongest of cases and would, as others have pointed out, lead to ambiguous timing situations, but i wanted to float the proposal anyhow. ccplayer's behavior with regards to captions having begin with no dur or end may be problematic in the test cases, however. > > onward... > > g. > > ________________________________________ > From: Glenn A. Adams [gadams@xfsi.com] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:29 PM > To: Silvia Pfeiffer; Geoff Freed > Cc: Sean Hayes; public-tt@w3.org > Subject: RE: beginEnd002: par timeContainer and child with no duration > > I also agree with Silvia, and would oppose the change suggested by > Geoff. The proposed change would be a significant departure from SMIL > timing semantics, which we have tried to maintain. > > Geoff, a better way for you to express what you want would be: > > <div timeContainer="seq"> > <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>0</p> > <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>1</p> > <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>2</p> > <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>3</p> > ... > <p dur='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>10</p> > <p end='10s'>This test is over.</p> > </div> > > G. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Silvia >> Pfeiffer >> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:41 AM >> To: Geoff Freed >> Cc: Sean Hayes; public-tt@w3.org >> Subject: Re: beginEnd002: par timeContainer and child with no duration >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > i agree with sean's explanation, as this is the expected behavior > according to dfxp >> now. however, when we built ccplayer we implemented things a bit > differently-- that is, >> a caption that has a begin time but no end time or dur will display > until the next >> caption displays. at that time, the first caption will erase just > before the next >> caption appears. so in the case of this: >> > >> > <p begin='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 > seconds.<br/>1</p> >> > <p begin='2s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 > seconds.<br/>2</p> >> > <p begin='3s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 > seconds.<br/>3</p> >> > >> > the first caption appears at 1s and is displayed until 2s, at which > time it erases and >> the second caption displays. at 3s, the second caption erases and the > third caption >> displays. etc., etc. in dfxp terms, that equals this: >> > >> > <p begin='1s' end='2s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 > seconds.<br/>1</p> >> > <p begin='2s' end='3s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 > seconds.<br/>2</p> >> > <p begin='3s' end='4s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 > seconds.<br/>3</p> >> > >> > >> > we did things this way because caption software has not always > depended on end times >> to erase captions when the captions are timed to appear sequentially > without pause. >> > >> > doing things the first way means less coding, which is convenient. > i would lobby for >> changing the spec, if it's not a big pain, to permit this behavior not > only because it's >> less work, but also because caption vendors will probably expect to be > able to do things >> this way. >> >> I respectfully disagree. >> >> To me, upon first reading the first example, it was clear that this >> would add a new caption every second, but not remove any of the ones >> before. This is a very convenient way of specifying a default end >> value of "this last until the video ends whenever it ends". The best >> means to support this is by not giving an end value and therefore >> allowing it to last "forever". And it allows to have overlapping timed >> text that lasts until the end. >> >> I think that if you wanted a text removed at a certain time, you'd >> have to provide an end time. Otherwise you are open to all sorts of >> misunderstandings. For example, what would you do with a specification >> like this: >> >> <p begin='1s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>1</p> >> <p begin='2s' end='4s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 > seconds.<br/>2</p> >> <p begin='3s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 seconds.<br/>3</p> >> <p begin='3s' end='4s'>This test counts from 0 to 10 in 10 > seconds.<br/>4</p> >> >> Would the third one appear at all? >> >> Best Regards, >> Silvia. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 12:14:42 UTC