Re: Timed text markup requirements

At 09:43 AM 2002-02-01 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> I would prefer to use CSS. ...

Thank you for giving me the excuse to post this briefing:

Please suspend judgement, for now, and a focus on the collection of relevant
information or evidence.

Please try to sustain an information-gathering tone in discussions at this
time.  One of the missions of the written W3C Process is to try to ensure that
all interests get a hearing.  We have begun the process of trying to find all
interested stakeholders, but we haven't done due diligence yet to ensure that
they are on board.  This list is not a consensus body and is not 'chartered' to
reach conclusions.  It is best that we follow a guideline of not closing any
doors before the door is officially open.  By this I mean let's not draw
conclusions about what is and is not a requirement or a best choice until we
have succeeded in creating a duly chartered Working Group following the W3C
Process.

Al

>David's list of requirements is very helpful.
>
>Some basic questions:
>
>Are we looking for an XML format?
>
> I think the answer is yes, and as far as possible we would like to re-use
> existing XML modules such as those in SMIL and XHTML
>
>Do we want to include presentation attributes, or use something like CSS?
>
> I would prefer to use CSS. I think that at the very least if we include
> them, we should explain explicitly how they fit into the use of CSS - much
> like SVG does. I would prefer this format to be basically semantics -
> including the possibility of quoting, emphasis...
>
>chaals
>
>-- 
>Charles McCathieNevile   
<http://www.w3.org/People/Charles>http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61
409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    
<http://www.w3.org/WAI>http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
>Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
>(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France)
>

Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 11:22:23 UTC