![the experiment 2010 .srt the experiment 2010 .srt](http://static5.opensubtitles.org/gfx/thumbs/8/5/2/0/0250258.jpg)
I think we'll need to experiment with DFXP and what 'profile' of it is appropriate.ĭFXP because a standard, XML-based format should be recommended path for caption/subt markup. I think recommending SRT support makes sense. There seems to be some discrepancy between the question ('what should be recommended') and the answers to date ('what should be required'). Most representatives for browser vendors appear to agree that some complex format is eventually needed, but unwilling to commit to one right now. Requiring any format that browser vendors aren't expressing interest in supporting will mean nothing in practice, which was shown clearly by the codec debacle for. Its widespread use warrants consideration for its inclusion but not at the expense of other formats (including SmilText) that support advanced text-display features which are not part of SRT. The simple popularity of SRT is not a reason for it to supersede other formats in our recommendation.
The experiment 2010 .srt full#
Rather than implementing the full DFXP/TTML spec, our goal should be to specify a basic baseline profile. DFXP/TTML must be a part of this proposal now, in some form, and should not be relegated to some later version.
![the experiment 2010 .srt the experiment 2010 .srt](https://img.itch.zone/aW1hZ2UvNTk0Mjg4LzMxNDQ3MDguanBn/original/obLJJK.jpg)
The SAMI format should be considered, because it is literally a profile of HTML+CSS (with a handful of special elements).
![the experiment 2010 .srt the experiment 2010 .srt](https://static7.opensubtitles.org/gfx/thumbs/2/5/1/7/0997152.jpg)
I put my vote on DFXP, allthough I have nothing against smilText either. Whatever we add should be really simple, shouldn't be presentational, and should be compatible with a large set of existing content.Ī decent mark-up solution for media text associations seems crucial for the usability of and (else one will turn to Flash and other plug-in formats for that purpose). However, if there is a baseline, SRT seems to be the one that has the most support among implementors, and will likely be supported in all major implementations of, so it would probably be ok to make it a baseline. It seems like requiring any one format will just make it more controversial. I don't think it's necessary to require a specific format for the initial proposal. 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. "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. 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 (), 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: the Media MultitrackAPI which currently is absent any comment on supported caption formats) While technically not an out-of-band format, I believe that it needs to be acknowledged w.r.t. 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. 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)