On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:51 AM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:44 , Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > It seems obvious to me that we currently do not have any consensus on > the discussed issue. I certainly do not agree to take established > attributes, copy them to TTML and give them another namespace (e.g. the > TTML Styling namespace). I have strong concerns about this procedure (which > is one of the core aspects of the Netflix proposals). I commented this in > the f2f meeting, in discussions and also in a wide review comment to TTML2. > > I think there is at least a courtesy problem, if not a formal one, if the > “other namespace” and its defining document are not W3C ones, which appears > to be the case here (I assume ebutts: is EBU Timed Text). Have we not > already had this issue with SMPTE extensions? > Only in IMSC, not in TTML. IMSC was afforded more freedom to draw on external namespaces; however, as a core technology, TTML has remained restricted to its own namespaces the XML and XLINK namespaces, which precedent exists in both SVG and SMIL. > > > David Singer > > singer@mac.com > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 19:18:34 UTC