- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:28:33 +1200
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com > wrote: > Understood. But what is actually the cost of implementing all of TTML? > The features in TTML all map onto existing Web technology, so all it > takes is a bit more parsing code over time. > When implementing one complex spec (TTML + XSL-FO) in terms of another complex spec (HTML + CSS), you have to be very very lucky to find that all the features map perfectly, even if the specs were designed to work together that way, which in this case they are not. Even if you're lucky today, evolution of the specs could easily accidentally break things. We could make that problem go away by normatively defining something that looks like TTML in terms of a translation to HTML + CSS. It wouldn't really be TTML though, and where's the added value for authors? I understand the deep political problems here, but I think it's most logical for styled content for the Web to use (possibly a subset of) HTML and CSS. Server-side tools to translate between TTML and HTML+CSS would be one way to address the desire to interoperate with TTML. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100414/854b0902/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 20:28:33 UTC