2010/5/25 Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]>: > 2010/5/23 Silvia Pfeiffer <[email protected]>: >> I just came across this thread >> http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1397067 and found it a most >> interesting read! >> Particularly the comment of jiifurusu . >> >> It seems the subtitling community is developing a replacement format >> for ASS with advanced features beyond what WebSRT has. Wouldn't that >> show there is a need for an exchange format with advanced features? > > Not necessarily. It means that people want certain advanced features. > It doesn't mean that those are necessary, or that the people > developing those advanced features are aware of existing work they can > build on, like the entire web stack. We can do a lot with a very > simple format that covers all the *necessary* use-cases and can be > easily implemented by simple devices, and then expose extra > functionality via the web stack's technologies like CSS for the more > important devices (that is, anything that can implement the web). > > This does presuppose a particular segmentation of device > needs/priorities, but it's a segmentation that I believe makes the > most sense for a modern format, given the reality and increasing > pervasiveness of web-based video. > > >> That new format seems to try and cater for high-end needs and lower >> end needs. If we have to develop a new non-HTML-like format, wouldn't >> it make sense to coordinate with those guys? In particular if the >> community that we are trying to build upon by reusing SRT is actually >> against extending SRT? > > Based on that thread, the main argument that community has against > extending SRT is that it won't be compatible with current authoring > tools. Their advice appears to be to instead adopt a new format being > created which will also be incompatible with current authoring tools, > though, so I don't know if I can trust their instincts too much. ^_^ > > (Not saying anything in particular against ASS or AS6, as I haven't > looked at them in any sort of detail, but they do similarly appear to > be more complex than we want for the same reasons that everything else > has been too complex - they build in things that are potentially > desirable but not necessary, and which can be done through existing > web-stack technology equally well.)
The complexity argument will similarly be used by the subtitling community that if we require all of HTML as a format for high-end subtitling, we are bringing too much complexity into the subtitling world. I think we have to be careful not to make a short-sighted decision right now with what we think is the 80% use case, which in the future may turn into more of a 40% use case and the high end features - things such as animations in subtitles, SVG images in subtitles, hyperlinks in subtitles, transparent overlay images in subtitles, etc - will be much more common, because the world's technology has moved on and subtitles are much more common. I look in particular at what is already possible on YouTube with subtitle-like technology such as annotations and even the overlay ads. I know that much of this is not for accessibility, but why would we not think beyond accessibility for something as important as timed text for video. Cheers, Silvia.
