- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:45:52 +0000
- To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- CC: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Hi Pierre, > Was there any delta to the gap analysis you provided? Not really, though possibly it wasn't the right forum for an in-depth analysis. Aside from the discussion of disparity, there was mention that CSS animations exist and are getting better, which might be a point to note regarding the continuous animation additions. Kind regards, Nigel On 27/07/2017, 00:37, "Pierre-Anthony Lemieux" <pal@sandflow.com> wrote: >Hi Nigel, > >> TAG agrees that the styling features/requirements of subtitles and >>captions need to be in CSS. >> [...] request to begin work on meeting subtitle and caption >>presentation requirements in CSS, prior >> to following up at our meeting in TPAC later in the year (to which I >>will invite CSSWG as previously agreed). > >Thanks for the report. Very encouraging news. > >Was there any delta to the gap analysis you provided? > >Best, > >-- Pierre > >On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> >wrote: >> This morning I was invited to attend TAG who were meeting in London, to >> discuss TTML2 as part of the horizontal review. >> >> The draft (in progress) minutes are at >> https://pad.w3ctag.org/p/2017-07-26-minutes.md and will be finalised on >> https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/tree/gh-pages/2017/07-london at some >> point in the future (they will be "day 2"). >> >> Here's my unofficial broad summary of the discussion and the >>conclusions: >> >> TAG considers that CSS is the future for styling and recommends that >>where >> possible TTML styling attributes define their semantics on the >>equivalent >> CSS properties, potentially alongside the XSL-FO semantics if they are >>the >> same, or I guess at least highlight the differences if they exist. The >>view >> is that one day, we will have to, so it is cheaper to do it now than >>later. >> I explained a little of the history why TTML references XSL-FO. >> I explained that I do not think that TTWG is concerned about syntactic >> differences, but semantic differences are a potential problem. >> There's a possibility that CSS semantics currently aligned with XSL-FO >>might >> in the future diverge. >> CSS whitespace handling is being looked at actively we're not the only >> ones to have problems with it. >> It is deemed acceptable to move a spec to Rec if it normatively >>references >> other specs that are in Candidate Rec. >> CSS publishes roughly annually a snapshot of the current specs that are >> considered to be stable. This could be used as the basis for any >>references. >> There was a bit of discussion about the basis in XML and XML's future, >>with >> no conclusion. >> There was some question of whether TTML is the best place to put >> stereoscopic disparity of text; I argued strongly that it has to be in >>there >> if it is to be useful. >> Regarding TextTrackCue not being instantiatable directly in most >>browsers, >> the suggestion is to discuss with HTML WG and possibly raise issues >>against >> individual browser implementations. >> TAG agrees that the styling features/requirements of subtitles and >>captions >> need to be in CSS. >> There's a CSS WG face to face meeting in Paris next week if possible I >> will join remotely for the agenda item on TTML2 HR and request to begin >>work >> on meeting subtitle and caption presentation requirements in CSS, prior >>to >> following up at our meeting in TPAC later in the year (to which I will >> invite CSSWG as previously agreed). >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Nigel >> >> >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk >> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain >>personal >> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. >> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. >> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in >>reliance >> on it and notify the sender immediately. >> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. >> Further communication will signify your consent to this. >> >> --------------------- >
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2017 13:51:41 UTC