Re[3]: updated timed-text document

>  >>I think there are several possibilities, some which this point might
>>>be trying to say:
>>>
>>>a) there will be an XML representation of the timed text format (since
>>>     markup is mentioned, this is pretty much a given)
>>>b) the XML will be well formed (otherwise it is not XML)
>>>c) the XML will be valid to a DTD
>>>d) the XML will be valid to a W3C XML Schema
>>>e) the XML will meet some other validity constraint mentioned in the
>>>     prose of the specification
>>>f) XML will be the only representation of this format
>>>g) XML will be the canonical representation of this format, but
>>>     transcoding to binary XML representations is allowed for particular
>>>     devices
>>>h) there will be a single defined binary representation as well as the
>>>     XML representation
>>>i) there will be many representations, XML is just an example
>>>
>>>My recommendation would be to select a, b, d, g and consider h and avoid i
>
>DS> This is a nice analysis and seems like an excellent start.
>
>To clarify - does that mean that you agree with my recommendation, or
>that you agree that this is the list and have a different preference
>(in which case, what is it?)
>

Right now I agree, but I am open to persuasion otherwise (as indeed 
is usually true on a collaborative approach).


-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 13:23:20 UTC