RE: Alternate syntax for required features.

Thanks Glen,
 
I wasn't aware that the editors draft was 'public' yet, (in the past I
have been unable to access the draft copies because I / Screen are not
W3C members :-(
I'll take a look at this after NAB...
 
In general my main concern is that DFXP is very complex... I feel that
it currently will be seen as a big step up to move from EBU TR3264 to
DFXP...
My concern is that the apparent complexity will inhibit the adoption of
DFXP by TV broadcasters (for traditional TV broadcasting).
That would be a tremendous shame considering the efforts that have been
put into it so far...
 
It's a difficult road to tread, since clearly creating an easy
transition path will preclude the opportunity for commercial
organisations to profit from assisting in any migration.
However, my personal view is that there is and will never be a clear
demand for a migration (merely a need / opportunity? that is
unrecognised by most broadcasters!), so the commercial driver will not
actually exist anyway.
 
That's the drive behind my desire for a clear definition / example set
for lightweight DFXP.
 
best regards,
 
John
 
________________________________

From: Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com] 
Sent: 16 April 2009 08:06
To: John Birch; Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com; Public TTWG List
Subject: Re: Alternate syntax for required features.


here are the relevant links:

http://dev.w3.org/2008/tt/spec/ttaf1-dfxp.html#features
http://dev.w3.org/2008/tt/spec/ttaf1-dfxp.html#feature-transformation-ma
ndatory-table
http://dev.w3.org/2008/tt/spec/ttaf1-dfxp.html#feature-presentation-mand
atory-table

On 4/16/09 2:46 PM, "Glenn Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com> wrote:



	
	have  you read appendix E in the current editor's draft?
especially tables E-2 and E-3? this material has been available for
review since Jan 30... but you may be behind in your reading...
	
	On 4/16/09 2:07 PM, "John Birch"
<john.birch@screen.subtitling.com> wrote:
	
	

		I personally would like to see is some example use of
the profile mechanism **within** the current specification. Is it
possible to create a minimal set of dfxp features (perhaps that closely
match the ccforflash implementation for example) that could be 'termed'
dfxp-lite and to declare that within the spec ??
		
		With respect,
		John
		

	
	


John Birch | Screen Subtitling Systems Ltd | Strategic Partnerships Manager
Main Line : +44 (0)1473 831700 | Ext : 270 | Office :  
Mobile: +44 (0)7919 558380 | Fax: +44 (0)1473 830078
john.birch@screen.subtitling.com | www.screen.subtitling.com
The Old Rectory, Claydon Church Lane, Claydon,Ipswich,IP6 0EQ,United Kingdom


See us at NAB 2009, Las Vegas, 20th - 23rd April, Hall S4 Stand SU 10009


Before Printing, think about the environment


This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Screen Subtitling Systems Ltd. Registered in England No. 2596832. Registered Office: The Old Rectory, Claydon Church Lane, Claydon, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP6 0EQ