- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of jfoliot@stanford.edu <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:02:02 +0000
- To: jfoliot@stanford.edu,cooper@w3.org, mike@w3.org, janina@rednote.net, ,www-archive@w3.org
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Consensus check on formats for media text associations' (HTML Accessibility Task Force) for John Foliot. --------------------------------- Formats for media text associations ---- The media subgroup of the HTML Accessibility Task Force, as part of their work to help improve accessibility support for the HTML5 media elements, would like to request feedback from all members of the Task Force about which format(s) to support for external associated text resources—particularly caption and subtitle file formats. As part of the Media TextAssociations proposal, one or more file formats for external associated text will need to be recommended as baseline format. Thus far, SRT (the SubRip format), DFXP (also called W3C Timed Text), and smilText (SMIL's version of timed text) have been proposed as baseline formats. However, other formats exist that may also be relevant. The subgroup is interested to gain a full understanding of the requirements and preferences that people have. Which format or combination of formats do you think should be introduced as the baseline for external associated text? * [x] DFXP * [ ] smilText * [x] SRT * [x] Other formats (provide the details in the Comment field) Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): .sbv - Native time-stamp format currently used at YouTube (which is likely the largest repository of captioned videos on the planet, and given their recent announcement of last week, likely to be growing by leaps and bounds) .scc - Binary format used for Line 21 captioning (being produced TODAY by large commercial content providers, as well as the *ONLY* caption format currently supported on iPhone. While technically not an out-of-band format, I believe that it needs to be acknowledged w.r.t. the Media MultitrackAPI which currently is absent any comment on supported caption formats) W.R.T. DFXP: there has been some discussion but no resolution on *how much* DFXP support should be provided, and questions whether a number of different profiles of DFXP, with increasing amounts of "richness" be developed - there are already 3 public profiles available - which one (if any) does this survey refer to? As Matt May (and others) have pointed out (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0102.html), mapping the basic start and end times of any time-stamped document to a basic DFXP profile is not only quite easy, but such a profile currently exists: http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#profile-dfxp-presentation W.R.T. "Requiring any format that browser vendors aren't expressing interest in supporting will mean nothing in practice..." a)I think it is counter-productive to have engineers telling the accessibility community what should and shouldn't be supported. b) If that were the sole criteria for implementing and documenting new aspects of HTML5, it is very likely that the entire Web Forms 2.0, which currently is NOT SUPPORTED in FireFox, Chrome, IE and only partially supported in WebKit should be dropped from the spec at this time, as it appears that only Opera has chosen to support it at this time. These answers were last modified on 8 March 2010 at 18:01:40 U.T.C. by John Foliot Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/media-text-format/ until 2010-03-11. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 18:02:05 UTC