- From: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:53:12 -0400
- To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Timed Text Working Group WG <public-tt@w3.org>
one more thing: in the 708 specification (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1999/fcc99180.txt), i found the following info: ============ 9.10.4 Scroll Rate At a minimum, decoders must support the same recommended practices for scroll rate as is provided for NTSC closed-captioning. 9.10.5 Smooth Scrolling At a minimum, decoders must support the same recommended practices for smooth scrolling as is provided for NTSC closed-captioning. ============ this would mean that .433s is the minimum rate at which DTV decoders must scroll the text. to be consistent with this, perhaps we should alter the text to include both analog and digital specs, like this: "If the value of this attribute is rollUp, then this value is interpreted as a shorthand value equivalent to out(line,smooth) inter(0.433s). This time interval is intended to be compatible with "Closed Caption Decoder Requirements for Analog Television," page 792 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr15.119.htm), and "Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital Television Receivers," Sections 9.10.4 and 9.10.5 (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1999/fcc99180.txt)." g. ________________________________________ From: Sean Hayes [Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:48 AM To: Geoff Freed; Timed Text Working Group WG Subject: RE: ISSUE-101 (rollup interval): aribitrary interval for rollup needs justification [DFXP 1.0 (Editorial)] Ok, although rather than 'defined by'; I'd prefer to say 'intended to be compatible with', since we are defining it and we don't want it as a normative reference. rollup doesn't seem to be defined in EBU3264 or DVB subtitles, so unless Franz or David objects to the US centric nature of this reference, this is fine by me. Sean Hayes Media Accessibility Strategist Accessibility Business Unit Microsoft Office: +44 118 909 5867, Mobile: +44 7875 091385 -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Freed [mailto:geoff_freed@wgbh.org] Sent: 15 May 2009 2:29 PM To: Sean Hayes; Timed Text Working Group WG Subject: RE: ISSUE-101 (rollup interval): aribitrary interval for rollup needs justification [DFXP 1.0 (Editorial)] for section 8.2.7 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ttaf1-dfxp-20090511/#style-attribute-dynamicFlow), paragraph #5: "If the value of this attribute is rollUp, then this value is interpreted as a shorthand value equivalent to out(line,smooth) inter(0.433s). This time interval is defined by "Closed Caption Decoder Requirements for Analog Television," page 792 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr15.119.htm). how's that? g. ________________________________________ From: Sean Hayes [Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 7:04 AM To: Geoff Freed; Timed Text Working Group WG Subject: RE: ISSUE-101 (rollup interval): aribitrary interval for rollup needs justification [DFXP 1.0 (Editorial)] That would be helpful. If you can suggest wording for the spec that would be even better. Sean Hayes Media Accessibility Strategist Accessibility Business Unit Microsoft Office: +44 118 909 5867, Mobile: +44 7875 091385 -----Original Message----- From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Freed Sent: 15 May 2009 11:57 AM To: Timed Text Working Group WG Subject: RE: ISSUE-101 (rollup interval): aribitrary interval for rollup needs justification [DFXP 1.0 (Editorial)] this corresponds to the speed of the scroll of 608 roll-up displays, i believe. i can look this up if you need me to. g. ________________________________________ From: public-tt-request@w3.org [public-tt-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Timed Text Working Group Issue Tracker [sysbot+tracker@w3.org] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:54 AM To: public-tt@w3.org Subject: ISSUE-101 (rollup interval): aribitrary interval for rollup needs justification [DFXP 1.0 (Editorial)] ISSUE-101 (rollup interval): aribitrary interval for rollup needs justification [DFXP 1.0 (Editorial)] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/101 Raised by: Sean Hayes On product: DFXP 1.0 (Editorial) In the Proposed 'rollup' shorthand. The 'inter' value of 0.433s needs some justification or explanantion
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 16:53:55 UTC